Search This Blog

Friday, February 2, 2018

NO! To a Constitutional Convention of States

OMG. Though I am sure he's well-intentioned, I'm very disappointed that Hannity now so strongly supports a Convention of States effort to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Re-written by whom? All those stellar, sober statesmen and clear-thinking constitutional scholars out here? And just who might those stellar paragons of faithful constitutional construction be? (Mark Levin, who assails and negates the 10th Amendment? I don't think so.)
The Constitution doesn't need to be re-written; it needs to be ENFORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The remedies for enforcement are already there: We the People (organized resistance, push-back), invoking the 9th & 10th amendments against federal usurpations, a carefully applied traditional amendment process outlined in Art V.
Permitting well-intentioned but unproven folks to re-write the Constitution to "improve it" is akin to risking burning down the forest to protect it. Doing so fundamentally violates our founders' warning against such a sweeping and fundamentally careless action.
ENFORCE, DON'T REWRITE. OUR CONSTITUTION IS ONLY AS GOOD AS OUR WILLINGNESS TO ENFORCE IT. UNLESS ADHERED TO AND STRICTLY ENFORCED, THE CONSTITUTION, AMENDED OR OTHERWISE, IS BUT A STREAM OF WELL-MEANING WORDS. IN SHORT, an amended Constitution can be just as easily violated as an un-amended Constitution. And the risk we run of placing the awesome responsibility of re-writing our well-tested, sacrosanct Constitution upon those for whom we have little faith or knowledge regarding underlying biases and motivations should cause us serious, sobering heartburn. Organize to Enforce the Constitution. Don't risk it's be re-written. IF we go that route, we may be deeply disappointed by the finished product. Re-writing doesn't fix the problem. It could very well exacerbate the problem. Don'[t mess with a good thing. The Constitution isn't failing us. WE are failing the Constitution.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Fundamental Constitutional Principles Should ALL Know

CONSTITUTION 101. To better understand how our system of government is supposed to operate, it is very important to understand these foundational principles (2 min):
1. The Declaration of Independence (DOI) says that rights come from God and that the purpose of government is to secure those rights God gave us. (Read the DOI and let this stick.)
2. The US Constitution does not list OUR rights. What it does is list--enumerate--those rights We the People, through our respective State governments, have delegated to the federal/general government. (Extremely important concept to remember. The Constitution was intended as a brake on the federal government.)
3. The 9th Amendment addresses “rights” and says just because a “right” isn’t listed in the Constitution doesn’t mean we don’t have it. (See DOI).
4. The 10th Amendment deals with “powers” not delegated by We the People, through our State governments, to the fed gov’t, and that those powers not SPECIFICALLY/EXPRESSLY delegated in the Constitution to the federal government by We the People, through our respective State governments, are reserved to the States or the People. (Thus, federal power is extremely truncated, limited, this by original design.)
If you incorporate these foundational principles in your thinking, you will be light-years ahead of 95%+ of law school grads whose education is grounded in case law--not the Constitution.

Beware Propagandists, Dissemblers

"Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will." Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Third Reich. Other quotes from his diary:
1. "A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth."
2. "The Truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
3. (Paraphrase) - An attempt to convince must confine itself to a few points which are repeated over and over. Persistence is the first and foremost requirement for success.
These principles dovetail nicely with the Left's darling, Saul Alinsky ("Rules for Radical"). Some of his most catchy quotes:
1. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
2. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
So, what current and widely used epithets intended to de-legitimize, misinform, dumb-down and destroy logical discourse are in common use today? A few that come immediately to mind are "Racist", "Anti-Immigrant", "White Supremacist", "Nazi/Fascist", etc. etc. etc. AND, the repetition works, huh? So, when you hear politicians using the same talking points and epithets over and over again, BEWARE! Like obedient students of Goebbels and Alinsky, they're selling a bill of goods - not the Truth. So, KEEP YOUR ANTENNAE UP and tune-out the propaganda.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

The BIGGER Lesson Behind the Cliven Bundy Case

With Cliven Bundy's recent exoneration, it is time for Pres. Trump to reverse years of unbridled federal imperialism.
Art I Sec 8 Clause 17, aka "Enclave Clause", specifically and unambiguously limits federal ownership of State lands to those lands needed "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings," e.g. post offices. Our founders NEVER said anything about federal retention of State lands for ANY other purpose--and most certainly without the consent of respective State legislatures.
Mr. Trump has already taken some remedial action to reverse this federal imperialistic trend by his returning 1.7 million acres, which had been illegally seized by Obama, to Utah. A great start and a clear indication as to just how conservatively he and Interior Secretary Zinke interpret the Constitution in this regard, an interpretation which is unarguably more in keeping with the Constitution's original intent and meaning than we've seen with any president since the early 19th century.
To further validate my viewpoint in this matter, note that Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 2 gave Congress the power to DISPOSE of property, but makes no mention of a power to acquire real estate except for those specific purposes cited in Art I Sec 8 Clause 17.
In summary, this all means that nowhere does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to seize or retain acreage for unenumerated purposes such as grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, advancing environmentalist policies or national parks. Setting aside State lands for these purposes was left to the States and to the States alone! And to alter or expand the purposes for which the feds may acquire land, the Constitution would require an amendment--not congressional legislation alone.
For the moment, and especially in this regard, I'm giving Mr. Trump a B+ as a constitutional conservative, which places him well ahead of any Chief Executive since before the War for Southern Independence in 1861. Obviously, he still has a way to go to fully comply with the Enclave Clause, but he's to be commended for what he's already accomplished in Utah alone. More broadly, and so far during his one year in office, he has yet to violate the Constitution--a truly remarkable achievement in this day and age when the Constitution is so routinely ignored. I can only hope he will faithfully continue on this course.
(If at all interested, I wrote a lengthier piece on this subject in my Opinerlog, "Federal Imperialism v State Sovereignty", 4/10/14.)

Judicial Usurpation of Executive Authority Continues

This has been annoying me for some time now. Remember when that district judge ordered a preliminary injunction against Trump's prohibition against LGBT military enlistments? I delved a little deeper and, as briefly as possible, this is the analysis;
ISSUE: Does the Judicial Branch of the federal government have constitutional authority to require the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government to permit transgender persons to serve in the Military?
Article I, Section 8, clauses 11 – 13, delegate to Congress the powers to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; raise and support Armies; and to provide and maintain a Navy.
Article I, Section 8, clause 14, delegates to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
Article II, Section 2, clause 1, says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”
In Federalist Paper No 69 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:
“…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. … his authority … would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy…”
Thus, all powers over the Military which have been delegated by the Constitution are vested in the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.
*The Judicial Branch has NO constitutional role to play in the organizing and operation of the Military Forces.
Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-14, Congress alone has the delegated authority to decide who may serve in the Military. If Congress issues Rules banning transgender persons from serving, then it is the President’s job, as Commander in Chief, to enforce those rules.
Accordingly, and as had insisted in a previous post on this subject, instead of participating in the litigation before the federal district court, the Trump Administration should instruct the federal judge on the long-forgotten concept of “Separation of Powers” and advise the court, “YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE MILITARY – WE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS LAWSUIT". In short, Trump is within his constitutional authority to IGNORE the unconstitutional, usurpative ruling. PERIOD
Don't know who's advising Mr. Trump, but I suspect it's more of the same gaggle of modern day law graduates who know not a whit about the Constitution--or even care. A great disservice to our Chief Executive and to our republic.

Enforcing the Law is the Remedy to IIlegal Entry. Duh!

This illegal alien who stabbed an American citizen re-entered the United States SEVEN TIMES since 2007! I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why this is being permitted. (Note: not sure when his latest illegal re-entry took place, but it looks like these re-entries occurred under Obama's watch, which, of course, wouldn't be a stretch.)
First, I am confused by ICE's use of the word "repatriated" in para 3 of the article. If use of that term was intended to be a more pleasant/PC way of describing the illegal's having been removed/deported, then my response below makes sense. If not, then I confess I know not what "repatriated" means within the context of immigration law, which suggests to me that the deportations took place while Obama occupied the White House. That said, the remainder of the article clearly suggests that this guy had, in fact, been "deported" seven times.
As I discussed on page 203 in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", per INA Sec 212(a)(9)C), a person who is removed from US and then tries to re-enter unlawfully should be permanently barred from any future entry.
Also, Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code renders illegal entry alone a misdemeanor carrying with it a fine of $50-$250 or imprisonment for 6 months (or both) for the first offense and a felony carrying with it a fine or 2 years imprisonment (or both) for the second offense.

Obviously ICE was not enforcing the law in this and likely many, many other cases. Any wonder we have an illegal re-entry problem? Geez.
You own this sanctuary-loving demorats. From Fox News: A man accused of an “unprovoked and brutal stabbing” at a market in California last month is an illegal…

Monday, January 15, 2018


YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST READ THIS INSIGHTFUL COMMENTARY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, SHARE IT WITH YOUR LIBERAL FRIENDS. Written by a conservative California mayor who ran as a registered Democrat in order to be elected, he points out that "Donald Trump is America's wartime president in the Culture War" which he is waging against Leftist disciples of Saul Alynski's "Rules for Radicals". He's using Alynski's tactics against them, and they're at their wits end. The article is perfectly spot on!! A MUST READ (4 minutes), folks:
                         Outstanding Commentary on Our President
Marshall Kamena is a registered Democrat and was elected mayor of Livermore,
CA.. He ran on the Democrat ticket as he knew a Bay Area city would never
vote for a Republican. He is as conservative as they come. He wrote the
Trump’s lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship..........
My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me
if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t
think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”
Here’s my answer:
We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a
man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous
lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.
We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who
so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?
We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt
And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing
by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for
the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those
of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.
I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack
Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to
ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democrat Party.
I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans
in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.
I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to
destroy your political opponents and any dissent.
Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least
bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”
The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the
Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is
held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.. It has been a war they’ve
fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day
one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.
The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side
fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who
stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity,
collegiality and propriety.
With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s
first wartime president in the Culture War.
During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the
most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors.
Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen
him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.
Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted
Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln
rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”
General George Patton was vulgar-talking. In peacetime, this might have
seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal
rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five
decades into their thousand-year Reich.
Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton
standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s
shouting, “You magnificent bastard, I read your book!”
That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only
is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.
That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the
Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire
Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’ graduate thesis. It
is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our
book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky
dedicated his book to Lucifer.
Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing
exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do.
First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that
they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60
years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet
Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson,
Missouri — Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.
Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described
as “the most powerful weapon of all.”
Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable
position. They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices.
They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of
herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and
begin to honestly and accurately report the news or, they can double-down on
their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria
and demagoguery.
The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start
honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democrat Party
they devotedly serve.
It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read "propaganda") that
keeps the Left alive.
Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported
then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid
Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the
true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.
Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama
administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political
opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about
the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s
So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish
we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified”
and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And
it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past
50 years.
So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be
vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t
spare this man. He fights for America!
(And my own advice to fellow patriots is this: FEARLESSLY FIGHT THIS SEMINAL CULTURE WAR TO WIN!)