Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Never Yield to Fascist and neo-Nazi Tyranny

This morning, when I viewed Fascist Antifa/BLM protesters tearing down, then kicking and spitting on a Confederate statue which, since 1923, commemorated all those young men in the Confederacy, both black and white, who courageously sacrificed their lives to defend their homeland and families from invasion, I was totally sickened and enraged.
Immediately, the vision of Stalinists as well as of Italian and German Fascists airbrushing and distorting history by burning mounds of books and destroying statuary which didn't comport with their self-serving authoritarian version of history came into painful focus, and I was at once very worried that too many of us have, by our silence, come to tolerate the intolerable.
Image result for Stalin, Mussolini, HitlerTyranny by what is now a small but vocal and violent minority is tyranny. Remember that it was a tiny, vocal and violent minority that brought us Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Stalinist Russia. So, who's going to stop them and when?
These Fascists have no heart, no empathy, no sense of honor and decency, and, most importantly, they do not respect human life, our history, our Constitution and the sacrifices of our fallen brothers. This also applies to neo-Nazis and white supremacists on the alt-Right.
What's next for the Fascist subverters? The Jefferson Memorial? The Washington Memorial? Both owned slaves. But, how about the Lincoln Memorial? (One needs to remember that throughout Lincoln's slash and burn invasion of the Confederacy he did all he could to elicit the support of black leaders to encourage their black brethren to migrate to Liberia and locations in central America. He never believed blacks should achieve an equal footing in American white society, and said so. He intended to maintain a white-dominated America. Of course, we only remember his Emancipation Proclamation, a politically-induced ruse intended to address flagging Northern enlistments and to ennoble an otherwise very unpopular war in the North.) In truth, and aided and abetted by the neo-Marxist Democrat Party, the removal or destruction of these monuments, like so many other national monuments in both the south and north, are already on the Fascist chopping block. And what will YOU do then? Or will it be too late?
IF the proverbial historical pendulum doesn't start swinging the other way soon--and only the weight of patriotic Americans can make that happen--this republic is t-o-a-s-t. And we have no one to blame but our go-along-to-get-along selves.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

"Compromise" No Longer Honorable

In the distant good ol' days when American political parties shared patriotic fervor and limited government principles, and when their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution was considered a solemn covenant with the People of the United States, "compromise" was a sensible, noble and commonsense way to govern a republic for which all shared a deep and abiding respect.
Well, today, with the Democratic Party taken over by an alien neo-Marxist ideology (Progressivism) and too many in the Republican Party no longer faithful to their republican principles, but choosing instead to co-opt big-government Progressivism simply to remain in power, "political compromise" is no longer noble, responsible or honorable.
Today, legislative compromise now more accurately connotes appeasement with un-American, anti-republican political forces bent on the fundamental transformation of America into an authoritarian system of command and control.
For genuine patriots and objective students of history, "compromise" today means exactly what it has become: accommodating an alien ideology, appeasing the enemy within, and surrendering to subversion. In short, there's NOTHING at all lofty and principled about compromising when it means subverting constitutional order and, in the longer term, committing national suicide.
To a man, our Founders would have unhesitatingly adjudged the likes of Senators Murkowski, Collins and McCain, among other big-government elites in DC, both left and right, loathsome traitors to constitutional republican government. Sadly, the truth is often ugly and very unpleasant. Better get used to it because it isn't going to become any less pleasant.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

BEWARE the Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act (HR 38)

Image result for State vs Feds, 2nd AmendmentWith the passionate support of the NRA and GOA, the "Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act" (HR 38) is currently under consideration by the House. In effect, the federal bill, if passed, and irrespective of State Constitutions, allows a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another State that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms. Gee, nothing illegal about that, right? And, of course, being able to conceal carry across State lines with impunity would certainly be more convenient. Yes, indeed.
Just ONE BIG PROBLEM, fellow gun owners: ANY federal law that would force States to recognize conceal carry permits issued by other States is 100% unconstitutional, plain and simple.
Think about it: 1) the underlying Constitutional purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that able-bodied persons in each State are suitably armed and trained to defend the liberty and sovereignty of the State as part of the Militia when called upon, and the critically important right to bear arms is predicated on that foundational principle; 2) while self-defense is a natural right, it is no more important than the Militia's ability to defend the liberty and sovereignty of the communities, for without one's ability and right to arm and defend himself, a Militia is impossible, and, finally; 3) IF CONGRESS CAN CONFER A RIGHT TO CARRY FIREARMS ACROSS STATE LINES, REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS, THEN A FUTURE CONGRESS COULD JUST AS EASILY RESTRICT THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS THAT ONCE CROSSED STATE LINES, REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS, AND IT COULD ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ARMS REGISTRY IN THE PROCESS.
Gee, doesn't sound so attractive anymore, does it.
The point is this: the federal government cannot constitutionally regulate gun ownership or State gun laws--nor should a free people who take their rights seriously approve such a frightening overreach.
Let the States work this out--NOT Leviathan!!! Since there is NOTHING in the Constitution which delegates such 2nd Amendment authority over the States by the federal government, let's leave well-enough alone. (Of course, we could push for an amendment to the Constitution permitting such federal authority, but I wouldn't advise it.)
What appears attractive can often kill you as well. So, were I you I'd carefully think about the downside of HR 38 before blindly supporting it. The feds have usurped enough State and individual powers already. Are you willing to surrender more? Once you give away your freedom, it's nearly impossible to get it back. My advice: be VERY VERY CAREFUL, gun owners and gun rights organizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript: a respondent enquired as to why a federally-mandated reciprocity law would constitute infringement. My answer: The 2nd Amendment was intended by the States and their citizens to restrict the feds in such matters, principally to safeguard State sovereignty from both foreign invasion and national tyranny. It was not intended to be a restriction on the States. That said, one needs to carefully look at one's State Constitution to ensure that one's 2nd Amendment rights are unabridged. Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State's Constitution, but, in any case, is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution. Why?  Because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and to receive training by the Militia, this per the Militia Act of 1792. However, this 1792 Act DOES NOT permit gun control/regulations by the feds. So, this is why reciprocity is a State function and why reciprocity should be handled on an inter-State basis without federal intrusion. I hope this explanation helps. The NRA and GOA, of which I am a member, are very myopic with respect to the downside of HR 38. Reciprocity is a pretty bauble maybe, but with very sharp edges.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Trump's Ban/Refugee Suspension Temporarily OKed


From my reading of the SCOTUS ruling this morning, here's what my understanding is:
In the interest of national security, 9 justices have ruled that the Trump ban is in force pending a final SCOTUS decision on the matter some time after the court reconvenes in October. This ban applies to persons in the six countries (Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq) covered in Trump's revised travel ban order (EO-2) and will apply to all persons in those countries EXCEPT bonafide students (already accepted by a university), employees who have been offered and have accepted employment by a US company, invited lecturers and those with a "close familial relationship" in the US. It also broadly validates the President's authority to exercise immigration policy as part of his constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy.
From my reading of the ruling, this also validates the President's authority to immediately enforce a suspension of refugee admissions into the US pending the President's review of the current vetting process. Exception is granted to those foreign nationals with "close familial" ties in the US. Also, the 50,000 refugee cap is authorized, but can be exceeded to accommodate those refugees with close family ties. (Lots of greedy refugee resettlement workers here are loudly wailing and moaning. Get the anti-depressants out.)
Though pleased, am shocked the court actually upheld the law for a change. How very novel. That said, we can still count on more case-by-case litigation from leftist loons. Chaos is their God.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

SCOTUS "Ruling" on Trump Ban Imminent


An immigration and refugee administrator/counselor for 22 years before my retirement in 2003, I would be appalled and sickened if SCOTUS once again flouts congressional intent by siding with the flawed "rulings" of the 9th and 4th circuits.
And what is especially odious and terrifying to me is the fact that we today have come to believe that SCOTUS jurists, America's NINE un-elected, unaccountable, black-robed, divinized judicial Delphic Oracles are somehow empowered by the Constitution to nullify executive or legislature edicts/laws.
Article III grants SCOTUS no such authority, and never has!!!!! The Court can opine, but NOT RULE and enforce. The weight of their opinion is that of moral suasion and nothing more. Their OPINIONS regarding the constitutionality of matters brought before them are no more nor less valid and sacred than the opinions of the sovereign States, their creators, or of the Executive and Congress. Jefferson and his fellow founders warned of this judicial tyranny. Well, it's here and what the hell are WE and our so-called "representatives" going to do about it? I suspect WE will whine and our representatives will duck and cover--AGAIN. Not the way a constitutional republic is supposed to operate.
There's a reason this bumper sticker appears prominently on the rear window of my vehicle: "Secession Sounds Better Every Day". I dream of a return to Jeffersonian republicanism which existed before Lincoln's Revolution, aka Lincoln's War, which turned this government and this republic into a top-down crony capitalist nightmare. Wilson, TR and the Roosevelts merely accelerated our rendezvous with national suicide.
Yes, I'm extremely angry and fed-up with the lawlessness and our leaders' faithlessness to and ignorance of our founding principles. Because enough of us understand what is really going on, and are incensed by this lawlessness, history teaches us that this grotesque state of affairs is not going to end well for any of us. The lines of division have been clearly drawn.
That said, in the case of the Trump ban the immortal SCOTUS judges may actually do the right thing--how novel--and summarily dismiss the lawless "rulings" of the 9th and 4th circuits. And, of course, I would be pleased with such an outcome. BUT, no matter what these divine Oracles "rule", the foundational problem of an overreaching judiciary will still afflict us all.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Confederate States of America: A Model of Jeffersonian Democracy

Image result for right of secessionDID YOU KNOW that the Confederate States of America was an economic powerhouse before Lincoln's lawless and needlessly ruinous slash & burn invasion?
By a huge margin, Per Capita income in EVERY southern state exceeded that of every state in the North, and economic historians described the CSA economy in 1861 as the 4th most powerful in the world. (So, it wasn't a backward, poor and medieval swamp deserving of invasion.) Man, have we been sold a bill of goods all these years by Lincoln apologists passing themselves off as objective American historians.
And just how Jeffersonian vs Hamiltonian/Lincolnian was the CSA governmental structure? Intended to inhibit federal overreach/tyranny/corruption/crony capitalism, here's just a sampling of the restraints incorporated in the CSA Constitution:
1. To restrain general gov't spending, thus containing the growth and corruption of that gov't, the CSA Constitution required a 2/3 vote in each legislative chamber just to INTRODUCE a spending bill !!!!!
2. Bills were clean, i.e. no tack-ons unrelated to the bill under consideration = no pork, no 3,000 page indecipherable omnibus bills catering to an army of lobbyists.
3. Spending for Internal improvements, aka infrastructure, had to be financed by the States and/or private sector--NOT the central government !!! (This is also a requirement in our Constitution though you wouldn't know it. Trump, take careful note !!!)
4. The one 6-yr term President possessed the line-item veto
***5. By a 2/3 vote in each chamber any State in the confederacy was empowered to impeach ANY federal officer operating in that State's territory requiring a timely trial of that offending officer by the national Senate. (You can be sure that reduced federal abuse, overreach at the State level, huh?)
6. Only 3 States (roughly 25% of the States) were needed to propose amendments to the Constitution, and 2/3 of all States were required to ratify same. (Our Constitution under Art V requires 2/3 of States to propose amendments and 3/4 to ratify.)
7. For new States to be admitted into the confederacy, a 2/3 vote in both the House & Senate was required. (Currently, our Constitution requires but a simple majority in both houses of Congress to admit a new State.)
This is just a sampling of the enlightened Jeffersonian provisions contained in the CSA Constitution, some or all of which today's Convention of State advocates should seriously take a look at. (We should carefully consider these provisions for incorporation in our our own US Constitution.)
The more I read about the REAL Confederate States of America the more I come to realize how painfully misinformed we have all been regarding the prosperity, productivity and educational level of the CSA (1 in 248 Southerners were college educated vs 1 in 780 in the North). And BOTH whites and blacks shared in this prosperity. (There's a good reason why so many 'slaves' gallantly fought on the side of the Confederacy.)
Over the years, self-serving revisionist historians hellbent on rendering the North--and Czar Lincoln in particular--the "good guys" have sold us a pack a lies. After all, it is the victor who writes the history, inclusive of all the misinformation and spin, of course. (If you get a chance, for starters check out Donald Livingston's videoed historical commentaries about all aspects of that otherwise terrible and deliberately mischaracterized period in our history. Very enlightening, educational. Might even piss ya' off when you realize how hood-winked we've been all this time.)
For some time now, I have understood that the South can take justifiable pride in its illustrious history and the statuary honoring its heroes, the latter which the crazed Fascist Left revisionists have been intent on destroying these last several years.
Oh, and why did the South lose its War for Independence? Very simply, it was badly out-gunned and terribly out-numbered. 

Monday, June 19, 2017

Alternative to a Union on Life Support?

Been giving some thought to how best to solve our country's slide into self-induced oblivion. With that in mind, I posted this on Real Conservatives and other sites. What's your take?
Alternative to a Union on Life Support?
Bearing in mind that the founders were very careful not to include the word "perpetual" to describe the union of States the Constitution fashioned, and understanding that history dictates that no nation is immutable, then why not a purposeful re-organization of this system to better ensure its stability and adherence to republicanism and constitutional order?
What has been proposed in the past is the political break-up of the union into 4-5 Administrative Regions, each comprised of legislative representatives based upon the 1:30,000 ratio rule suggested by our founders. (Today's unmanageable ratio is 1:730,000), Each of those Regions would also elect a Regional Governor. Those Regions would be essentially self-governing except in those areas which have already been specifically delegated by the States to the general gov't. (Think Swiss cantons, the purist federal system existing in the world today.) And as the 1:30,000 ratio is exceeded, a Region is duly downsized by the creation of additional Regions as needed. What matters is the retention of a manageable ratio of reps-to-constituents, this to ensure a genuine representative republic.
In turn, these Regions would appoint an equal number of Regional "delegates" to the general government, the latter which would pretty much look like it does today, except that the national legislature would be unicameral. All three federal branches would remain, but the Regions would have considerably greater latitude in striking down/nullifying federal executive and judicial edicts as well as administrative regulations.
Short of this remedy, the ONLY peaceful founder-sanctioned remedy is recision/withdrawal/secession by the various States followed by the formation of various independent confederacies which may well opt for a close economic/political/military alliance among themselves. Populated by people with differing cultural outlooks, each confederacy would be republican in nature and would act in its own interest and with its own peculiar ideological biases incorporated into its manner of governing. Those citizens with a more traditional, conservative bias and those with a more utopian/socialist outlook would naturally gravitate toward like minded regions, a reordering which would reduce the current level of cultural/political/ideological turmoil, thus obviating the need for full-on secession.
Whichever remedy works best works for me. Either remedy would be lawful and go a long way to arresting our national suicide. But I hope one or the other occurs SOON!!! Expecting fleeting kumbaya moments of faux unity and the occasional short-lived tamping down of inflammatory rhetoric to solve the fundamental breakdown in constitutional order and the abysmally deep cultural/ideological divide existing today is nothing short of delusional.