Tuesday, July 12, 2016

"Operation Parse & Dodge": AG Lynch Hearing Another Disgrace


In today’s hearing, the Democrats' shameless effort to deliberately and wholly distract attention from Hillary’s felonious behavior with respect to emailgate and AG Lynch’s consistently stonewalling relevant emailgate queries were on full display. It was sickening..

The primary purpose of the Republican committee members’ questions to the AG was to determine whether or not there is a difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence”, and whether or not “intent” is necessary to prove that US Code Section 793 was violated.  Asked again and again what the legal distinction was, AG Lynch routinely deferred to Comey and her “team “ of career Justice Department attorneys. After all, she’s only the Attorney General. Why would she be expected to answer such a legal question?

Committee Democrats' deflecting attention from Hillary’s “extreme carelessness” by pretentiously asserting their caring about “more important” issues like the death of black victims in Louisiana and Minnesota as well as the assassination of five Dallas police officers was their painfully self-serving way of dodging the burning issue of Hillary's lawlessness and electability--the Rule of Law obviously of considerably less concern to them.

Once again, the ideological lines have been drawn, and there is zero interest on the part of the Democrats to uphold their oath of office and to honestly, objectively address Hillary’s lawlessness. 

Who suffers by this charade and gross irresponsibility: nothing less than the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States.  And without either, there can be no equal justice under the law, no Liberty, no republic, and, most certainly, no chance for restoring public trust in government.  

In short, we, once citizens of America but now subjects of Leviathan, have again been duped, dismissed and utterly ignored.  

Get this through your heads: this is no longer a constitutional republic; this is now very clearly a country where the rule of Man, not of Law, is preeminent.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America—clearly NOT the country for which  I and my veteran friends fought and died, and certainly not the country for which those thousands of patriots who preceded us were maimed and died in her defense.

We must now look to our Founders for solace, yes, but also for their wise counsel and remedies. Those Founder-sanctioned and inherently rightful remedies are Civil Disobedience to express our unwillingness to submit to intolerable acts of government, State Nullification of unconstitutional federal acts in order to restore the State-Federal balance of power, Secession to defend constitutional order on at least the State level, or Rebellion in the face of tyranny. 

The choice before us couldn't be more stark: to restore our constitutional republic--while we are still able to do so--or to accept submission to Leviathan.

What will YOU choose?

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." Alexander Hamilton

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Courage & Virtue in Short Supply

(My editorial published 7/7/16 in local Democrat Chronicle)


For me, there can be only one reason why FBI Director Comey opted not to justifiably and responsibly recommend indictment of Hillary for gross negligence, aka "extreme carelessness", in her handling of classified emails.

Since Hillary is a presidential candidate with millions of followers, my guess is that Comey feared--yes, feared--being the guy who scuttled Hillary's candidacy. I also think he feared inciting tumult among enraged liberal voters and going down in  history as the guy who did it.

Of this we can all be certain: Courage, Honor, Virtue are in dangerously short supply in D.C

Going forward, no amount of painfully shameless obfuscation on the left and relentless political and lawyerly spin can eliminate a justifiably widespread and perfectly reasonable belief that the Rule of Law is, in truth, d-e-a-d.

My questions: Now that the two-tiered system of justice is exposed for all to clearly see, what is left for the People to do? That's a very serious question we must carefully and dutifully weigh. And what relief should be extended to those lesser Americans out there, both civilian and military, who have suffered horrendous life-altering punishments for committing the same level of gross negligence/"extreme carelessness" exhibited by Hillary?

POSTSCRIPT: An important takeaway from this morning's painfully tedious congressional hearing was Comey's observation that, to paraphrase, in the event a person commits the same level of negligence in their handling of classified materials as did Hillary, and after a disciplinary review, s/he should either suffer appropriate administrative penalties, that being "termination, suspension, reprimand," or lose his/her security clearance.

To measure the level of Hillary's culpability in this matter, we should remain focused on 18 USC Sec 793: "...Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of a any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 

Under this statute, "intent" IS utterly irrelevant. And how is "gross negligence" defined? "A conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to person, property, or both." At the very least, therefore, Hillary--or ANYONE who similarly mishandled classified materials--should lose her clearance and be appropriately disciplined. And just who's going to do that? That wasn't asked nor was the answer provided.

After carefully listening to and trying to empathize with Mr. Comey, whom I believe is probably a decent man, I remain completely flummoxed by his inability or unwillingness to recommend AT LEAST a misdemeanor charge. 

Very importantly, Hillary's violation of this statute and her serial lying to the American public on this matter clearly renders her completely unfit for office, and her election would most surely lead to the tumult Mr. Comey may have been trying to avert. Of that I'm certain. And, if  there are no such justifiable outrage or tumult, Americans should practice kneeling because you no longer live in a nation of laws and justice.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Hillary Lucks Out Again

Well, the suspense is over.

Today, FBI Director Comey announced that he will not recommend criminal charges, observing only that Hillary was "extremely careless", aka grossly negligent, with her handling of classified email, and alluding to a potential misdemeanor offense if the Justice Department is willing to go that route.

I'm sure she and her hubby are deliriously relieved and happy, as are her flipper-flapping loyalists. Let the Clinton camp's insufferable faux indignation and shameless spinning begin. Wretch...

Despite Mr. Comey's reputation as a straight-shooter and being above the political fray, his description of her handling of classified material as "extremely careless" should offer us no solace. In fact, it is a perfect bumper sticker for those of us who are justifiably opposed to a Hillary presidency. The terrible truth is "extremely careless" and grossly negligent pretty much sum up what Hillary is all about--from Emailgate, to Benghazigate, to Whitewater, etc. etc. etc.

The bigger question for me is what of the many Americans currently serving time for doing exactly what Hillary has done, i.e. carelessly handling classified and official emails? Let's face it, folks, she got off light--and WE ALL KNOW IT. That said, there is a silver lining:  this poses an opportunity for those imprisoned for having committed similar offenses to appeal their convictions. 

In any event, we'd best get used to a system that, in the end, favors the well-connected and powerful. You and I would be in jail with some of our fellow citizens, or at the very least, we would have been officially reprimanded and probably fired from our job. Regardless of one's political stripes, no reasonable and civic-minded American can deny that scenario with a straight face.

Lingering, of course, is the scandal-riddled Clinton Foundation. And how that plays out in the judicial system and the court of political opinion is anyone's guess.

One things for certain, folks: when it comes to scandal, skirting the law and routine lying, the Clinton underworld is always a target rich environment, which begs the question, are thoughtful, civic-minded Americans willing to tolerate four more years of the Clinton Mafia?

A talking head whose name escapes me recently and incisively observed that this race does not come down to a choice of "the lesser of two evils", but of "the more evil of two lessers". Not pretty, but there it is. For me, Trump, an inarticulate patriot, is my choice hands down. 

Sunday, July 3, 2016

If Indicted, Can Hillary Prevail?


TargetFreedom.com | Bill of Rights: Born Dec. 15, 1791 – Died Dec ...I did some exploratory digging to get a somewhat cogent answer to that question, and , in brief, here is what I found so far:

First, while there is a consensus that there are sufficient grounds for the FBI to recommend indictment, the chances of the Lynch-Obama duumverate permitting indictment is, at best and for purely political reasons, slim.

Second, if the charges are sufficiently egregious (multiple felonies), and if the Justice Department does not refer the matter to a grand jury for review and possible prosecution, it is generally believed that there will be electrifying high-profile resignations from and sensitive leaks by the FBI, the intelligence community and the Justice Department which, presumably, would adversely affect Hillary’s ability to win at the convention or in a general election. 

Third, from a constitutional standpoint there is no legal reason for Hillary to withdraw her candidacy before the convention, and Hillary, with the assistance of the media, would draw upon “the court of public opinion” to get elected and to see her through to inauguration in January.  (Note: the Constitution only lists qualifications for a president, not disqualifications; adding ex post facto disqualifiers would be unconstitutional.)

Fourth, since it’s a near certainty that Hillary will not withdraw even if indicted before the convention,  a “brokered convention”  might well ensue which could force her out. Though her delegates are committed to supporting her on the first round of balloting, the 712 super delegates could easily bolt and rally around another candidate if they felt the chances of her election had been seriously jeopardized. Party loyalty could well trump loyalty to Hillary.

Fifth, if Hillary is indicted, there is no constitutional requirement for her to withdraw. Period.

Sixth, if Hillary is indicted, wins the general election and delays the trial until after inauguration in January, per Art II Sec 4 only impeachment by a majority in the House and conviction by 2/3 vote in the Senate can remove her from office. (Note: an indictable offense is not necessarily an impeachable offense; impeachment is a political process.) And if she’s not convicted by the Senate, which is the most likely scenario, Hillary skates free—at least while she’s president. If she leaves office before the 5-year statute of limitation which begins ticking from date of indictment is met--in other words, she’s not elected to a second term--she can still be tried. (Note: for terrorism and financial crimes the statute of limitations is 8 and 10 years respectively.)

Seventh, a sitting president can order the AG to drop all charges, or to not either pursue prosecution or to enforce any sentence imposed. Such an action would surely place into question her constitutional responsibility to “faithfully execute the laws” of the United States and would be, therefore, an impeachable offense.

Eighth, since there is no limit on a president’s pardoning authority, but as no president or governor has ever attempted to pardon himself/herself in the past, Hillary’s pardoning herself would be unprecedented and could easily be construed by the public and Congress as morally—not legally—reprehensible.  The repugnancy of a self-pardon might well be sufficient for an otherwise reluctant Congress to impeach, try and remove her  from office.

Conclusions: my guess is that a narcissistic Hillary Clinton would be more than willing to put the country through the wringer to achieve political power--public interest, traditional standards of rectitude and moral conduct be damned.

If nothing else, these unseemly developments should spark renewed interest in an Art V Convention of States to tighten up qualifications for presidential candidates, to say nothing of limiting the constitutional authority of an increasingly imperial Executive Branch. These unprecedented developments should also both incur the moral outrage of the People and encourage individual States to  review their election standards as well.

If the charges are as substantive, well-founded and egregious as many on both the left and right agree they are, and if 1) Hillary wins the general election and, 2)  Congress abdicates is constitutional responsibility to impeach and remove her from office, then all bets are off as to the survivability of this once venerable constitutional republic. If massive marches on the White House to force her resignation are not attempted or don't succeed, then secession or rebellion can be Americans' only salvation.

Opinerlog.blogspot.com

POSTSCRIPT: Well, the suspense is over. Today, Director Comey announced that he will not recommend criminal charges, observing only that Hillary was "extremely careless" and alluding to a potential misdemeanor offense if Justice is willing to got that route. While I respect Mr. Comey's judgement and even-handedness, his description of her handling of classified material as "extremely careless" is a perfect description of what Hillary is all about, from Emailgate, pay-to-play Clinton Foundation, to Benghazigate, to Whitewater. I'm sure she and her hubby are deliriously happy and relieved, as are her flipper-flapping loyalists. Let the Clinton faux indignation and painful spinning begin. Wretch...

Friday, June 10, 2016

A Powerful Judiciary is the Very Definition of Tyranny


Image result for Judicial TyrannyFor decades now, the Chief Executive, the Supreme Court and the mammoth unaccountable federal bureaucracy have been operating FAR FAR outside the Constitution, and too many folks just don't seem to get it or, worse, don't c-a-r-e. 

By our silence and routine submission to this endless stream of lawlessness we, in effect, further weaken the Constitution and jeopardize those safeguards which it embodies. 

The Chief Executive and the Judiciary MUST be reined in by Congress, failing which it is up to the States, per their 10th Amendment authority, to defy and nullify these non-stop encroachments on our liberty and the Rule of Law. 

When it comes to the point that the strongest argument for supporting a GOP presidential candidate is to ensure that only "conservative" judges are appointed to fill court vacancies, shouldn't it then occur to us that by our merely asserting this argument exposes  the awful truth that we have simply delegated  far too much authority in the judiciary--FAR more authority than our Founders ever intended or could have ever envisioned. 

When voters fear the appointment of either conservatives or liberals to the court, we are exposing our total ignorance of the constitutional role and limitations of the judiciary by our having accepted the wholly heretical notion that this judicial monster which now dominates our political system is the ultimate authority on legal, political and social issues. After all, don't these omniscient jurists obtain their infallible judgement and wisdom from God? Well, that is most certainly how most Americans view these black-robed oligarchs.

To checkmate judicial tyranny, the Constitution delegated to Congress the sacred duty to carefully vet federal judicial appointments to ensure that they are reliably committed to upholding the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution as originally ratified, failing which it is the constitutional duty of Congress to immediately impeach and remove any federal judge who violates that trust, be s/he Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

In short, the proximate cause for the relentless stream of lawless, unconstitutional judicial rulings is FIRST faithless, agenda-driven judges and SECOND an unprincipled, spineless Congress unwilling to exercise its constitutional authority to impeach and remove demonstrably faithless judges.

The fault also lies with the States which routinely submit to judicial imperialism with but a faint whisper of objection. Per the 9th and 10th Amendments, States are absolutely  empowered to render null and void any unconstitutional acts, not only of the federal court system, but also of the Chief Executive, the Congress and the fourth branch of government, the latter being that suffocatingly lawless federal bureaucracy which now routinely operates outside the Constitution.

So, why doesn't Congress impeach, and why do the States fail to protect their citizens from the blizzard of federal encroachments? In the case of our timid Congress, it is our reps' propensity for self-aggrandizement, ideological accommodation and political survival. In the case of the States, it is the mountains of federal hand-outs they receive for their submissiveness. In short, MONEY and POLITICAL SELF-INTEREST drive this government--not bedrock constitutional principles. 

By original design, the States and Congress are the People's principal defenders of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. BUT it is the People who must ensure that our Founders' clear meaning and intentions are no longer ignored or flouted by local, State or federal apparatchiks. Thus, the ball is in our court. But, alas, what will we do with that ball? Kick it down the road again, or simply pretend it's not there.

As the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, We, the creators of this federal constitutional republic, continue to ignore and dodge our responsibilities in this regard at our own peril. 

Finally, I urge readers to join and support the Article V Convention of States whose sacred task it is to restore constitutional order, the ultimate guarantor of our Liberty. I also urge thoughtful readers to join and support the Tenth Amendment Center whose herculean efforts to restore the balance of power between States and the federal government has been nothing short of stellar.


("Seemingly guided by Chief Justice Hughes's arrogant and insidious assertion in 1941 that 'we are under a Constitution, bu the Constitution is what the judges say it is', the court's unelected judicial oligarchs, aka judicial legislators, have, over the years, proven to be unreliable defenders of the Constitution." Author)

("The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. James Madison, Federalist #47)





TRUMP Should Hit Liberal Racism Without Fabricating "Racial Virtues" of Lincoln

Image result for Lincoln, white supremacistIn an excellent article today entitled "Trump Vows to Fight Democrat Racism, Sexism", Breitbart News reports that Trump intends to expose Democrats' notorious history of racism and sexism. FINALLY!

But, in the article the writer alludes to the misnamed "civil war" and Abraham Lincoln as stellar examples of Republicans' historical purity on this issue.

In the comments section I entered the following:

 "Good article, but PLEASE PLEASE get beyond the prevailing and wholly erroneous revisionist belief that 'ole Abraham Lincoln fought the so-called "civil war", aka War of Northern Aggression or War for Southern Independence, to free the blacks.UNMITIGATED HOGWASH! 
Like most of his contemporaries in the North, Abe was a shameless white supremacist who tore the country apart for his own political and economic purposes. He ain't no hero of mine, nor should he be to any clear-headed American anywhere.

That said, glad Trump is turning these issues back on the Liberals whose history in these areas has been notorious! About time a GOP candidate is willing to tell it like it is, to tangle with the devil, to fight fire with fire!"

For starters, I urge truth-seekers to read a scholarly and extremely well-documented book entitled "The Real Abe Lincoln". Sobering and educational to say the least, the book should remind us that it is always the victor in war who writes the history of that conflict, calculatingly skewed, tendentious and revisionist though that account may be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(“If anybody tries to penetrate the past with the knife of the present will always act in vain. The past is invulnerable. Such attempts can only cause the present or the future to bleed." - Gregor Brand”
Simon Schwartz)

(“Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.”― Chinua Achebe)


Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Hillary Reflects What Too Many Americans Have Become: Unprincipled Dolts

Image result for A republic cannot survive without a virtuous peopleOn Politico, the headline read "Clinton Aide: Reporters don't ask questions voters care about." 

This, of course, was Hillary's dismissive attempt to quash reporters' insistence that she has been anything but accessible and open to questions. Well, there are reasons for her lack of openness and engagement with the press--and all but the willfully ignorant and Party-first loyalists among us are painfully aware of those insidious reasons.

For me anyway, the headline of the story says it all: "reporters don't ask questions voters care about."

Though cynically defensive and obviously self-serving on Hillary's part, the terrible truth is that at least 50% of American voters genuinely DO NOT CARE IF HILLARY IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISABLED, AND, SO FAR, AN UNINDICTED FELON, and so many other voters are either ignorant or totally disengaged. And therein lies our sorry fate as a constitutional republic of laws.

If so many Americans "don't care" about the character of the people who represent them, then Americans are unworthy of constitutional governance and individual freedoms and will, by their own dereliction and depravity, forfeit the blessings of Liberty and constitutional Rule of Law for themselves and their posterity.

As a constitutional republic we are now as close to self-destruction as we've ever been! But, let there be no mistake: Hillary is but a symptom of our depravity and suicidal proclivities; the 50+% are the root cause.

It is not easy to see a good or peaceful end to this national crisis. With a Hillary presidency, widespread turmoil, civil disobedience and, yes, dissolution of this once venerable union of States would no longer be the stuff of idle speculation. My guess is that Hillary's ascendancy to the White House would surely stiffen patriotic resolve and resistance.

Unless legally prevented from assuming office in January 2017, political and societal upheavel and political disunion are most likely inevitable. 

Despite his obvious shortcomings, with Trump, untried but a patriot, we would still have something of a chance to hold it all together for a while longer...or at least until we as a people can summon the courage and clarity to restore a virtuous society, constitutional order and the rule of law.

No Pollyanna I. Semper paratus. 

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." Thomas Jefferson

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell