Search This Blog

Friday, May 4, 2018

Springfield Armory Severs Ties with "Dick's Sporting Goods" Anti-Gunners

The venerable Springfield Armory, a gun and ammo manufacturer created in 1777 by none other than George Washington to prosecute the Revolutionary War, has severed ties with Dick's Sporting Goods (appropriately named) and its subsidiary, Field & Stream (not to be confused with the magazine), after Dick's removed and destroyed its rifle inventory, denied anyone under 21 the ability to purchase a weapon, and hired three lobbyists to press Congress to abridge Americans' 2nd Amendment rights. The list of subversive liberal businesses with whom I will never again do business is growing. Two can play this game. And guess who will be hurt more?

Friday, April 6, 2018

Mexico Defies Int'l Protocols: Aids & Abets Illegal Alien Invasion of USA

The internationally-accepted DEFINITION OF REFUGEE/ASYLEE: refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion and are, therefore, fearful of returning to their country of origin. (Note: Economic reasons are NEVER grounds for granting refugee/asylee status. Also, if asylum is being pursued, such a claim must be reviewed, granted or denied by the FIRST country into which the prospective asylee flees.)
Clearly, Mexico hasn't reviewed, granted or denied asylee status to the migrants currently transiting Mexican territory enroute to the US southern border. In accordance with current international protocols, Mexico is required to have done so, and if these central American itinerants met the requirements of an asylee, then Mexico must have granted them asylee status and resettlement in Mexico. If asylee status was denied, then Mexico must have deported them to their country of origin. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work.
Regarding the CARAVAN of gate-crashers being permitted by Mexico to navigate unencumbered through Mexican territory to the US border, per Art IV Sec 4 of the US Constitution, the federal gov't is duty-bound to "protect [States] from invasion", failing which the States are duty-bound to mobilize their own State Self-Defense Forces to repel such brazen incursions.
If Mexico fails to stop the transit of this and other such caravans/flows of purported "asylees" to America's southern border, then at the very least, the US should recall its ambassador from Mexico "for consultations". And should that diplomatic shot across the bow be ignored by Mexico, then the gloves must come off: withdraw our ambassador, lodge a formal complaint with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, impose economic sanctions, and both mobilize and deploy federal militias along the border. No more pussy-footing. Americans expect firm, credible action to stop such invasions of our sovereignty. And, guess what? We don't need a damn wall to protect our borders. We need but the political will to do so.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Is a Convention of States Really the Way to Go?

Regarding the much-touted rationale for an Article V Convention of States, if amending the Constitution will compel our representatives to obey it, then doesn't it logically follow that since few obey the 10 Commandments we should amend the Commandments as well? Just sayin'... The point is that compliance with the Constitution can only occur when the People and their representatives insist upon the Constitution's rigorous enforcement. It doesn't need to be rewritten; it needs to be enforced.

California's Opposition to Census Citizenship Question a Scam

Shameful. On the Left, the usual lying, parsing and double-talk have already taken hold of the census question "Are you a US Citizen?" Like I've often counseled, when constitutional issues/questions arise, consult--what else--the Constitution. So much easier that way.
In a nutshell for the brain dead obfuscators out there, here it is:
Art I Sec 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution calls for the "enumeration of the people" (except Indians) every 10 years in order to properly apportion direct taxation and representation, the ratio of reps to population today which is, roughly, 1 rep for every 800,000 citizens.

In Federalist #16, framer/founder Alexander Hamilton defined those persons enumerated, aka counted, would be "the natural guardians of the Constitution", that being We the People, the citizens of the US, who created the federal gov't and Constitution, and in whom is entrusted the duty of safeguarding that Constitution. (Notes: 1. Clearly, illegal aliens,, temporary residents, visa holders and resident aliens cannot be described as "the natural guardians of the Constitution"; 2. The Constitutional Convention eliminated this citizens-only rule by including 3/5 of slaves in the enumeration, a compromise crafted by the framers to entice the southern States to ratify the Constitution and to accede to union with the other States. 3. Per the 14th Amendment in 1868, also included as "guardians" were Indians who were paying taxes and expressed a desire to vote. 4. And in 1924, all Indians were included in the enumeration as citizens; 5. Very important to understand that "inhabitant", "qualified person" and "US Citizen" are interchangeable terms in Art I Sec 2 Clause 2 and Art I Sec 3 Clause 3 when defining the qualifications for national elective office.)

Any argument to the contrary is N-O-I-S-E.

Sunday, February 25, 2018


LISTENING TO THE CACAPHONY over school safety, I've noticed that the current debate boils down to Gun Control a la Australia (Democrats) vs School Safety a la Israel (Republicans). One side wants the number of guns in the country severely curtailed--even entirely eliminated. The other side wants to safeguard Americans' natural and constitutional right to bear arms while relying on the 2nd Amendment to effectively defend our children in schools.
And this: Raising the age to own a gun from 18 to 21 still strikes me as empty-headed pandering. Though it may be politically expedient, I believe all rational folks understand that it will solve nothing. (Look at the age of other shooters over the past 10 years. Well over 18 OR 21. Thus, there is no magic age at which the possibility of madness is altogether eliminated.) 
Also, and as I mentioned in a post below, setting age limitations on gun ownership is the Constitutional province of the States. (Yes, the Constitution needn't be cavalierly violated to achieve school safety--especially when such a violation is completely unnecessary; thus, I'm relieved to read that President Trump will defer to the States in this regard. Good for him.) I would warn Trump against overreaching his executive authority in gun control matters, but, to reasonably placate those who FEEL age is a key factor when projecting possible gun violence, I would ask him to urge Governors and State AGs at the President's upcoming confab with them to follow Florida's example: to own a semi-auto rifle, one must be 21. But, again, that should be properly left to the States. 
Also, to ensure the safety of our schools, which should be our primary, overriding concern, sufficient armed personnel must be deployed full time at each school. A mix of willing and well-trained teachers and armed resource personnel would provide the defensive depth needed to properly deter and effectively react to a shooter. More thorough background checks and timely input of data into the national and State registries, more vigorous, proactive local engagement and mental health intervention and adequately armed and trained personnel at every school is the answer. No brainer.
**School safety is solvable. It's an easy fix, folks. But the Left would have you believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is the ONLY acceptable solution. Poppycock. They clearly appear to care more about advancing their totalitarian political agenda to disarm Americans than in protecting our kids. 

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 We 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.