Search This Blog

Monday, December 17, 2012

Stop Politicizing the Massacres

During his recent Newton speech, the President promised to "use all the power of his office"--and then some, I'll wager--to "protect our children." A lofty goal, but why are his words not reassuring, but, rather, cause for genuine concern?

With Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" in mind, my justifiable concern is that Progressives don't merely seek "gun control"; they seek "people control", which is precisely why their gun control arguments are so often mystifying, twisted, disingenuous, illogical, grossly ineffective, and dangerously farcical.

Without trampling the Constitution, there are eminently practical solutions to better safeguarding our children which do not involve disarming law-abiding citizens. For example, schools are currently “gun-free zones”, an inane invention of the Left, which essentially renders schools "free fire zones" for armed evildoers.  Like in Israeli border areas, one or two armed and trained staffers in each school would dramatically reduce or virtually eliminate the slaughter of innocents. Deterrence with the threat of deadly counterforce works!

If we follow what passes for liberal "logic", to reduce the preventable slaughter in our country across the board, then trains, airplanes, motor vehicles, knives, playgrounds, bows and arrows, stones, cribs and tire irons, among other lethal objects, should also be dramatically curtailed or altogether outlawed. Oh. And let's not forget doctors whose malpractice is responsible for nine times more deaths than gun homicides! Duh.
In any case, let’s insist that an honest, bipartisan, professional, objective and sober cause-and-effect appraisal follows this horrible Newtown tragedy--not more ideologically-motivated palaver which serves only to enhance government control and precious little else.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).


Saturday, November 17, 2012

Is an American Confederation in our Future?

(Written a few weeks before the Nov. 6th election)

I am anticipating that if Obama is somehow re-elected, his reign will be short-lived.

The train of executive abuses and excesses already perpetrated by this imperial president will not be tolerated for much longer.

Faced with the awful reality of an unbridled neo-Marxist at the helm, and at the insistence of millions of irate, fearful and demoralized citizens, I anticipate that Congress will be compelled to impeach and possibly remove him from office. Of course, this assumes that there is a sufficient number of "blue dog" Democrats in the Senate who value their country's future over Progressive ideology. On the otherhand, if Obama doesn't moderate, and if Congress fails to constitutionally remedy the situation, then other forms of resistance will be inevitable.

But, let's say Obama is impeached, but, which is more than likely, the Senate fails to convict and remove? What then?

There is precious little doubt in my mind that many millions of patriots will take to the streets and, eventually, massive marches on DC to curb federal overreach and profligacy will ensue. And if that too fails to rid us of the Obama and Progressive tyranny, then millions will likely resort to outright civil disobedience, and in State Houses the push for nullification and secession will be on the upswing.

The spark? The unbridled Progressive assault on the 2nd Amendment, the bedrock core of the Bill of Rights. Even a patriotic military takeover is not out of the question. And, of course, there is always the specter of a second American Revolution.

Frankly, to prevent the total collapse of the nation, I believe the people will insist upon impeachment and removal. We will be momentarily shaken by this unsettling development, but we will survive intact and, more importantly, we will be on the road to constitutional and economic recovery.

Clearly, this is a critical juncture in our nation's history, probably the most critical since Valley Forge. In the final analysis, we either restore constitutional order nationwide, or the union fractures, and rightly so. And given the deep and likely irreparable ideological divide which already exists in these "united States", perhaps the formation of confederacy of socialist republics on one side and of constitutional republics on the other will be irresistible.

Even without Obama and Progressive tyranny acting as a catalyst for such a dissolution, isn't this reordering of our political system inevitable anyway? I think so, and I think history is on my side.

When our learned and perceptive founders delved into political history to guide them in fashioning an efficacious system of governance grounded in republicanism, they essentially agreed that a republic is successful only when the polity is virtuous, yes, but also when the republic is manageable both in size and population. They well-understood this republic was an "experiment". And while they hoped the experiment would succeed, they were not delusional.

They understood that a large and excessively diverse & corrupted electorate would inevitably undermine republican principles and lead to authoritarianism and centralization, this in an effort to effectively govern; that, historically, the natural inclination of government was to expand its power and control. This, of course, would mean a unitary system of governance which would rely upon a one-size-fits-all formula, a formula which would prove to be inefficient, arbitrary and heavy-handed, and which would, inevitably, lead to tyranny, resistance and dissolution.

One way or the other, patriots will get through tumult IF we remain rigidly united and faithfully determined to safeguard our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Some Advice to "Secession Petitioners"

Historically, short of revolution or rebellion, secession is the ultimate practical check on centralization.

No branch of the federal government is empowered to decide upon the merits of a State's inherent right to secede. By its very nature, secession is an anti-federal act not requiring federal sanction.

Petitioning the federal government for permission to secede is self-contradictory and has no basis in English common law or American constitutional history. Secession/rescission/withdrawal is a unilateral action and is not dependent upon mutual agreement between the parties to that contract.

When one enters into a contract and the other party violates that contract, does one request permission of the offending party to withdraw from that contract already violated? Of course not. All compacts are subject to the equitable remedy of rescission in the event of a breach of contract. It's really common sense, basic contract law. It's that straightforward.

At its inception, the US of A was a voluntary compact (contract) of sovereign States, each retaining the inherent authority to rescind its contractual relationship with the federal government, the other party to that contract, should the latter violate the terms of that contract/compact. That contractual relationship hasn't changed, though the misnamed "civil war" may have led us to believe otherwise. (By the way, "civil war" means that two or more factions are militarily struggling over control of the central government; however, in America's so-called "civil war", the South was defending its sovereign territory, not entertaining the capture and control of the central government in DC.)

Force of arms alone by a revisionist, self-contradictory, union-at-any-price nationalist, that being our heretofore venerated Abe Lincoln, cannot--and did not--invalidate a State's inherent right to secede, or to otherwise rescind its ratificaton of this contract, no more than the federal government can legally or constitutionally annul the People's right to rebel in the face of tyranny.

Note: if secession were treasonous, which some maintained it was, why then were not southern leaders dragged into court following the North's successful invasion of the Confederate States of America? Easy. Because the North didn't want to lose in court what they thought they had won on the battlefield.

Perpetual union at any price was never contemplated or embraced by the Founders. Rebellion, secession, nullification, civil disobedience remain essential elements of America's republican fabric, and the threat or application of force on the part of the federal government cannot eradicate those foundational, inherent and unalienable rights of a free people.

When ratifying the Constitution, and only to the extent that it delegated certain of its sovereign powers to the federal government, not once did any State surrender its sovereignty. All powers voluntarily granted by the States to the federal government were very limited and very specific. All other powers not delegated remained with the States. The 10th Amendment enshrined that principle in the Constitution and, in so doing, reasserted the foundational principle that the federal government cannot unilaterally redefine the limits of its powers.  To join the union, the States were not compelled to surrender anything, much less their sovereignty.

And remember, we not only seceded from England, but also, one by one, from the Articles of Confederation (which was said to be "perpetual") in order to form the current union of States, a union which was initially comprised of but 9 States, the remaining 3 sovereign States freely opting to remain outside the union until well after the Constitution's adoption. This "MORE perfect union"--MORE perfect, NOT perfect--was not intended or expected to exist in perpetuity, but, like the Articles of Confederation, only until such time that the compact outlived its usefulness. Our Founders, studious historians, were not stupid men and well understood the corruptibility of men and all that man may devise.  While our Founders  hoped the union would be strong, free and productive, they did not view secession and dissolution as ill-conceived, treasonous or unanticipated. We've just been brainwashed into believing that secession and dissolution are vile, wrong, corrupt and treasonous. Not so at all. If that were true, then our Founders were charlatans and short-sighted fools. They weren't.

All that said, as a first step I recommend that States opt for nullification, the "rightful remedy" as Jefferson described it, to resist unconstitutional acts by the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Chief Executive and their myriad bureaucracies which now comprise the unofficial fourth branch of government. And to render nullification more efficacious, States should enact punitive laws to prohibit the enforcement of those federal acts nullified by the State. This is called "interposition", or a State's insinuating itself between intrusive federal authority and the citizens of the State. Interposition would actually require the arrest, trial and imprisonment of any State OR federal agent who attempts to enforce a nullified federal act. Of course, implicit in nullification is the threat of secession should the invasive federal government fail to retreat to contractual parameters. But, again, secession is not by its nature treasonous or unavoidably violent. Not at all.

Finally, while I sincerely appreciate the wave of secessionist sentiment sweeping the country, secession, a serious constitutional matter, requires a majority of a State's residents to support the act. Anything less than a majority constitutes a protest and nothing more. And even with a majority expressing its support for secession, the people's State representatives must be won over as well, this if the label of  "insurrection" is to be avoided and Art I Sec 8 Para 15 be invoked. Note: per Art IV Sec 4 of the Constitution, "on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)", the feds can be asked to intervene, whether that intervention is morally repugnant or not. Secession is a political act, not merely a feel-good act. Thus, on the subject of secession, both the people of a State and their duly elected State representatives must be one.

So, to the near one million well-intentioned petitioners around the country, this: without a majority within a State as well as State legislative support, secession is an impossibility. Great PR--maybe--but nothing more.

"The source of Lincoln's power was his willingness to exercise power not grounded in the orginal Constitution but in in his creative abilities to undermine the Constitution while rhetorically defending it."  Donald Livingston, "Rethinking the American Union..."

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution." William Rawles (1825)

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

What's Next is Up to Us!

Shattered by the disastrous presidential election outcome, at midnight last night I quietly and somberly lowered the American flag and replaced it with a defiant “Don’t Tread on Me” banner which will remain aloft for as long as alien ideologues occupy this nation’s capital.

Pollyannas take careful note: at best, the Republic is now in limbo. Not quite dead and buried yet, but not quite alive either. More accurately, it’s on life-support. So, on that score let’s stop deluding ourselves. If we are to restore constitutional governance, American exceptionalism and economic productivity we must all unite and fearlessly commit ourselves to patriotic a-c-t-i-o-n. No more excuses. No more waiting for it to take care of itself. No more whining. No more preaching to the choir. It’s too late for anything but active and constructive engagement.

Obviously, the “experts” grossly underestimated Obama’s well-organized political machine as well as the commitment of Obama’s utopian drones who, having bought into his false promises of  bread and circuses, mindlessly turned out in unanticipated numbers to sweep the Obama thugocracy back into power.

I could say we all get what we deserve in a democracy. Problem is I, like nearly 50 million other Americans, didn’t vote for four more years of corruption, mendacity and imperial rule. AND, of course, we are not a democracy. Our Founders fashioned a republic. Yet again, what the election does underscore is that the ballot box cannot always be counted upon to remedy our ills. (Gaza comes quickly to mind.)

Surviving four years of Obama was enormously challenging and draining. But, unless he genuinely moderates-- and there’s zero likelihood of that—patriots’ and the union surviving four more years of his “fundamentally transforming the US of A” is quite simply a bridge too far.

Today, our enemies, both foreign and domestic, are rejoicing. Iran, undeterred now, remains on course to developing its nuclear arms program, Russia eagerly awaits Obama's promise to be more “flexible”, however imperiled our national security will end up being. Draconian and debilitating cutbacks in our defense apparatus remains a clear and present danger. The shutting down of Catholic health facilities is more likely than ever before, further degrading our healthcare system. A Middle East cataclysm is now a near certainty. Nationalized heathcare is on course to rob us of life, income and liberty. The corrosiveness of crony capitalism and unionism will now be epidemic; class warfare will continue to be stoked by the Progressive neo-Marxists further eroding the bonds which hold this country together; the globalist agenda (Agenda 21, etc) will be fast-tracked; EPA invasiveness will be unchecked. Dependency on foreign oil will remain a costly burden on productivity. In increasing numbers, businesses will be compelled to close or to relocate overseas. As Obama promised, utility costs will “skyrocket”. Unemployment and commodity prices will continue to soar, ensnaring both drones and patriots alike. Gargantuan budget deficits will continue, and an already unsustainable national debt will further explode. Liberal political activists will replace conservative justices at all levels and the relevance of the constitution will be further diminished. And as in all tyrannies, federal gun control efforts will be redoubled. Hard to find a silver lining here, folks, but it's nothing any of us didn't anticipate.

So, what are we to do? What is our duty to family, community and country?

Short of open rebellion (for now), and barring a military coup d’etat to rescue the republic, the States, particularly those which are dominated by conservatives and traditionalists, should be immediately enjoined to earnestly and fearlessly nullify ALL federal usurpations, inclusive of judicial rulings and executive orders which do not clearly comport with the US Constitution or which otherwise violate the bedrock doctrines of balance of power and state sovereignty. And if that remedial action fails, what then? Civil disobedience and, without hesitation, secession.

The terrible price the robotic starry-eyed drones are willing to pay for their bread and circuses is NOT the price patriots are willing to pay. At least not this patriot.

Compromise and accommodation with a soulless alien ideology is no longer tolerable nor useful—not when our individual liberties are at stake.

Let the power elite be on notice. Patriots are uniting to defend their unalienable God-given rights!

Don’t Tread on Me!

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Revisiting Secession: A Constitutional Check on Federal Tyranny

Regarding the nature of this hallowed union of States, Americans must never, ever forget how the Founders viewed this union and the States which comprise it.  

We must get past the adolescent, uninformed, politically correct and self-destructive notion that this union is inviolably indissoluble. This union is not indivisible and never has been.  To believe otherwise defies logic, commonsense and flies in the face of our founders’ understanding. Despite the relentless brainwashing over the years, a little honest research—without the blinders—is all that is required for readers to clearly understand the unassailability of a State’s right to secede.

From its inception, the united States of America has been a voluntary association of sovereign States. In truth, no States were coerced to become members of that association. The union is a contractual association, a compact of independent States, any of which may secede from that association should the other party to that contract, that being the federal government, fails to uphold its contractual obligations.  To wit,  as a condition of their ratifying the US Constitution, Virginia, Maryland and Rhode Island explicitly reserved their right to secede, and no objections from the Founders were raised. And, in accordance with the 10th Amendment, because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, that power, like all other powers not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States.

No amount of revisionist history, lawyerly contrivances, political obfuscation, or otherwise misguided case law can nullify that fundamental truth. The judiciary is not sovereign and supreme. The States and the People are, and that is the way our founders intended it to be.

Further, without the approval of a duly-elected State legislature or, should it be impossible to timely convene the legislature, an invitation of the Governor, may force of arms  be applied by either the federal government or sister States to quell rebellion within a particular State or to otherwise impose the union’s will on any member of that compact. Because a misapplication of military force against a State or States may have been perpetrated in the past can in no way render that action lawful or constitutional.

To be specific, Article IV, Sec 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “The US shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” As such, it provides that the federal government shall protect each of the States of the union “against invasion, and on application of the legislature, or of the governor (when the legislature cannot be timely convened) against domestic violence.”

Extremely important to note is the admonition of James Madison respecting this federal guarantee: in Federalist 43, he stated that the authority of the federal union “extends no further than to a guaranty of a republican form of government”...and that “whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so.”

Conveniently overlooked by”nationalists”, proponents of a supreme central government, is the fact that during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison, father of the Constitution, expressed his revulsion with the notion of the federal government's committing armed force against any State for any reason outside that limited purpose clearly provided for in Art IV, Sec 4,  asserting that “a Union of States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction,” saying that “the use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war” and, to the party being assailed, “would probably be considered as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it was bound [to the union}.”

Thus, again, the only instance when the States or the federal authority may use force of arms against a State is if that State violates Art 4 Sec 4 of the Constitution, a provision which mandates that all State governments be republican in design. And only if a foreign entity has seized control of that State’s republican apparatus, thus rendering the legislature something other than duly-elected and/or the governor something other than duly-authorized, may the States and/or the federal government apply military force to bring that State back into compliance with the Constitution.

That said, with the acquiescence of Congress, it is manifestly obvious that Pres. Lincoln, for whatever reason, political or otherwise, overreached his constitutional authority by committing armed forces against  the seceding Confederate States of America in 1861, plunging this nation into one of the bloodiest and costliest wars in its history. And only by force of arms and a gun to their heads did the victorious North illegally compel the vanquished southern States to officially repudiate their inherent constitutional right to secede--which begs the question that if the States did not have the residual and inherent power and right to secede then why would they be required to renounce that authority?

 Asserting that the union was somehow indivisible, a concocted notion entirely foreign to the Founders, Mr. Lincoln, with much patriotic fervor, political fanfare,  lofty rhetoric, and faulty argumentation, brazenly flouted the constitution with impunity by violating the sacred right of those 11 sovereign States to legally secede from this voluntary union.   In truth,  the Founders well-understood that this union of States was never intended to be any more perpetual, aka eternal, than the confederation of States which preceded it, and that the union's survival was solely dependent upon both parties to the compact fully upholding their obligations under that contract.         

It should be remembered that when any suggestion of calling forth military force against a State was brought up in the Constitutional or State Ratifying Conventions, the notion of indivisibility was unanimously rejected by both framers and ratifiers alike. Irresistible and unavoidable conclusion: by plunging the union into war with the Confederate States of America, our childhood hero, Abraham Lincoln, was in clear violation of the original meaning, intent and spirit of the Constitution. In short, Mr. Lincoln, was dead wrong and our history teachers and textbooks have routinely and thoughtlessly foisted the myth of indivisibility upon generations of gullible children.
In all of my research over the years, there has been no evidence that the myopic notion of union at any price was ever conceived of or in any way embraced by the Founders. In fact, there's considerable evidence that the Founders viewed the very concept of indivisibility as dangerous. The States’ inherent right to secede, to interpose, to resist an overreaching central government remains as unmistakable, unambiguous  and unalienable today as it was in 1787.  

For future reference, let that truth sink in. To safeguard individual liberty, constitutional governance, and the sovereignty of the States, the immediate fiduciary agents of We the People, if our resistance to tyranny must necessarily entail secession, then that rightful form of redress and resistance must be fully embraced and fearlessly acted upon.

If the clear choice is liberty or union, can there be any doubt as to a free people's choice? Of course not. And the Founders knew that very well.

Thursday, October 25, 2012


 (Posted on "REAL CONSERVATIVES", "Tea Party Nation", "Patriot Action Network", "Right Face!")

On patriotic sites, I often read commenters’ heart-felt frustrations over both the unchecked lawlessness of the federal government as well as the painful absence of effective and concerted remedial action on the part of patriots everywhere to correct those abuses.

WHAT IF Obama is re-elected and stubbornly continues on his reckless course to “fundamentally transform the US of A”?

WHAT IF he, his progressive allies and acquiescent politicians on the other sideof the political aisle continue to ignore and, by their neglect, enable the federal government’s continuing to routinely flout and undermine the US Constitution with impunity?

My sense is that for millions of patriots, four more years of progressive tyranny would be a bridge too far. Backs to the wall and fearing for their lives, liberties and their ability to pursue happiness, my guess is that these patriots would, with proper leadership and in a spirit of civic-mindedness, tenaciously and unselfishly commit to taking all appropriate action to arrest America’s transformation and to otherwise nullify progressive tyranny.

With the Constitution as their guide, among these countless patriots, political accommodation, appeasement and compromise would be adjudged odious, self-destructive and, yes, treasonous. Seriously committed to restoring constitutional & economic order as well as to safeguarding and applying the foundational doctrines of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” at all levels of government, my guess is that the resulting societal and political impact on the nation would be historical in both scope and intensity.

At least, that is my fervent hope.

Desperate, the question then becomes how can patriots, short of open rebellion, effectively push back and stop the progressive/statist tide, failing which Americans everywhere must, by their ineffective action or silence, reconcile themselves to subservience to the State?

While I’m sure my proposal doesn’t break new ground, here it is anyway:

First and foremost, to be effective, organized patriotic resistance must be rigidly guided by participants’ unwavering and fearless pledge to uphold, defend and fully implement the original meaning and intent of the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitutions of the several States. Importantly, personal agendas and self-serving playbooks cannot be permitted to play any part whatsoever.

Secondly, to effectively counter the power elite, and while retaining their independence from one another, patriotic organizations around the country must link up and pledge their “patriotic cooperation” with the aim of effecting a reversal of progressive tyranny and to restore constitutional governance.

Third, all patriotic organizations should, at some point soon, immediately dispatch representatives to a “national convention of patriots” (ironic were it to be convened in Philadelphia) to develop both a list of grievances, again firmly grounded in the Constitution and our founding documents-- not in short-sighted parochial or self-aggrandizing considerations--and a corresponding list of specific strategies for effective, nationwide and well-coordinated civil disobedience and other activist engagement. (Among countless strategies, this initial grassroots agenda might well entail widespread refusal to pay various taxes/fees whose payment would constitute a clear violation of the Constitution; actively resisting EPA bullying by on-site demonstrations of solidarity with those job-creating industries (coal?) which have been especially injured by EPA overreach; developing a draft of Article V reforms; pressing State legislative representatives to resist federal overreach and to encourage States to immediately assume control over and to drill for oil/gas in those “federal lands” illegally held by the federal government. Obviously, the possibilities are endless . But, you get the picture.) Representatives might opt to extend invitations to constitutional scholars and historians to elicit their input and participation as well.

The burning question is what organizers of which creditable patriotic organizations already in existence who already enjoy notoriety and a following are willing to take the lead in this patriotic networking effort? What knowledgeable organizers are willing to initiate contacts with other national and local grassroots patriotic organizations to propose this patriotic networking and convention of patriots? Who’s willing to step up? All we need is leadership.

Finally, this: why wouldn’t a “National Patriot Convention"--not a constitutional convention--be entirely appropriate? Both progressivism, the enemy of republicanism, and an unscrupulous disregard for and ignorance of the original meaning of the Constitution on the part of our other political elites--both on the left and right--constitute an insidious contagion, a “clear and present danger”, which imperils both our way of life and our republican form of government.

If, indeed, and as provided for in the Constitution and by the framers and ratifiers of same, We the People are the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, and if We the People are, in fact, sovereign and pre-eminent in this republican system of government, then the duty rests squarely on our shoulders to remedy the “train of abuses”.

No more excuses. No more inaction. No more let-the-other-guy-do-it. No more therapeutically preaching or venting to the choir. Going forward, we must fully understand that only active, constructive, effective and unified nationwide grassroots engagement will turn the authoritarian tide and restore constitutional order.

I pray someone steps up to help move this grassroots effort forward. Gov. Palin? Tea Party organizers/blog managers? So many excellent possibilities too numerous to suggest here.

Truth is millions of patriots are chomping at the bit to make a REAL difference. Individually, we are reduced to whining, frustrated victims of tyranny. United, well-coordinated and firm in our civic-minded conviction to restore public trust and constitutional order, we millions are a powerhouse and can absolutely influence the direction both of our States and our nation.

If the re-election of Obama doesn’t spur us to effectively act in patriotic concert, just what will—ever? Doing nothing is a surefire recipe for disaster, a tacit consent to tyranny.

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.” Thomas Jefferson

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” John Locke

Friday, October 19, 2012

Executive Orders & the Death of a Republic

Retroactive from 1862, not until 1907 were Executive Orders (EO’s) published in the Federal Register. And today, over 13,000 EO’s have been issued and published. But, just what are they, and, more importantly, are they constitutional?
The short of it is that EO’s, aka signing statements, presidential determinations, presidential memorandums, presidential notices, presidential orders, have inexorably led to legally binding presidential directives substantially affecting not only executive administrative matters, but both national and foreign policy as well.

 With that in mind, the greatest fear of the founders was the establishment of a powerful central government and a strong political leader at the center of that government. They were determined to prevent the rise of monarchs, potentates or czars. Their plan was for a voluntary association of sovereign States in which power emanated from the States and the People, not from an overweaning central authority. For the framers and ratifiers, Congress, properly checked by both the Judiciary and the Executive, was intended to be THE focus of federal power and THE source of federal law.
Art I, Sec 1 of the US Constitution concisely and unambiguously provides that “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...”  In sharp contrast, Art II specifically outlines Executive powers and duties, none of which include legislating in any form. And to checkmate an overreaching Chief Executive, Art II also provides for the impeachment and removal of not only the Chief Executive, but of any and all officers comprising the Executive Branch.  

Originally intended to soley direct executive departments how to faithfully implement laws legislated by Congress, since the early 20th century EO’s have morphed into far-reaching imperial edicts which have little real hope of being invalidated by an unaccountable Supreme Court or overridden by a permissive Congress. In fact, in all our history only two EO’s have been successfully invalidated/overriden: Truman’s 1952 order to place all steel mills under federal control was invalidated by the Supreme Court, and a Clinton EO in 1995 which attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll was overturned by Congress. Thus, despite their being in flagrant violation of the Constitution, while EO’s can be voided, to do so is, indeed, acutely challenging and, therefore, rarely accomplished.

Worth noting are those less appealing and unsavory EO’s such as Franklin Roosevelt's order to remove all Japanese & German Americans from military zones, and to relocate Japanese Americans to internment camps which proceeded unchallenged by either Congress or the Supreme Court.
So, how can Congress, the People’s House, void an EO, assuming Congress was so inclined?

First, Congress must have the political will, rectitude and the numbers to effectively countermand EO’s. That said, as it plays out now if Congress disapproves an EO, it can withhold funds. But, to do so requires enactment of a law which must pass muster both in the House and the Senate.  The rub: if the law intended to countermand an EO is vetoed by the President, to override that veto requires a 2/3 vote, a super majority, in both chambers of Congress, clearly a politically daunting task indeed.  And, of course, there is the laborious process of impeachment and removal of the offending President to remedy the executive overreach. But, again,  removal would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate, a very unlikely outcome.
The alternative means of voiding an EO is if a suit is brought against the President before the Supreme Court and the court invalidates the EO, again a highly unlikely scenario. And, as we all know, the Supreme Court, which has proven to be far less than faithful to the meaning and intent of the Constitution, is often on the wrong side of constitutional questions. Seemingly guided by  Chief Justice Hughes’s arrogant and insidious assertion in 1941 that “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is”, the court's unelected judicial oligarchs--and, yes, judicial legislators--have, over the years, proven to be unreliable defenders of the Constitution.

It should be remembered that Roger Sherman,  a principal among the framers, held that the president should not have legislative authority; that his job was  to execute the laws and nothing more: “The Executive Branch is nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the legislature into effect”.
Similarly, another principal framer, James Wilson, asserted  that “the only powers strictly executive were those of executing laws, appointing officers, not appertaining to, and appointed by, the legislature.”

And upon the advice of fellow framer Charles Pinckney, none other than James Madison asserted that the president should have “power to carry into effect the national laws, to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for, and to execute such other powers—not legislative or judiciary--in nature.”
In effect, the framers insisted that the Chief Executive could not propose or make legislation under any guise, but, with respect to legislation, was absolutely restricted to executing those laws passed by Congress. Crystal clear, but grossly ignored by today’s power elite.

With the “help” of a habitually unfaithful Supreme Court, a corrupted Congress, and a complacent citizenry, is it any wonder we’ve strayed so far afield from the Constitution?
So, in the absence of a President who might happen to be personally inclined to faithfully adhere to the Constitution, we have little defense against a tyrannical Chief Executive. Thus, if the Supreme Court and Congress are unwilling to restore constitutional order by affirmatively re-establishing  the doctrine of separation of powers at the federal level, then, ultimately, and in accordance with the 10th Amendment, it falls to the States and/or the People to take appropriate action to remedy the breach. As James Madison asserted, “…the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.”

In closing, our now tattered and barely recognizable republic which was originally held securely in place by a carefully crafted system of checks and balances and separation of powers is no more.  To believe otherwise is wishful thinking, or, worse, delusional.

Since TR, with his 1006 unchallenged EO’s, Woodrow Wilson’s 3,723 EO’s and Obama’s in excess of 130 frighteningly Orwellian EO’s,  the imperial presidency has clearly taken on a life of its own, unchecked and tyrannical, effectively blurring any similarity to genuine republicanism.  In truth, all that holds this sham of a republic in place is the President's appearance of faithfulness to the constitution and a pervading hope that the President, whomever he or she might be, will kindly opt not to overstep his or her constitutional authority. But, if history is any authoritative guide, such self-inflicted delusion and misplaced confidence can only lead to national disaster.

Going forward, patriots everywhere had best pull out all stops to usher in a Constitution-first conservative takeover in DC. But, that’s only half the battle. Once elected, we must hold their corruptible feet to the fire to ensure a full restoration of our now deeply wounded constitutional republic, failing which only the dissolution of these united States by whatever means, violent or peaceful, is most certainly inevitable.

To be clear, EO's aren't a Progressive or Republican problem. EO's are an equal opportunity contagion. Both parties, all modern presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court, and, yes, We the People are culpable. If we deserve better, we will beget better.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Judicial Tyranny & We the People

With the polls showing a very close presidential race, fears are mounting among patriots that if Obama is re-elected very liberal justices will be appointed to fill the vacancies of at least  two retiring justices, one of whom may be Justice Scalia, a fairly reliable conservative jurist.

Can you imagine the damage done should two more Kagans or Sotomayors be appointed and a 5-4 or 6-4 liberal SCOTUS rear its ugly head? With the judiciary in his back pocket, Obama's "fundamental transformation of the United States" might well prove to be a fairly leisurely cakewalk.

But, not so fast!

First, for the libs to take over SCOTUS, the Senate would have to remain in Progressive hands, an unsettling prospect which diminishes with each unemployment report and blazing American consulate. For that reason alone, patriots had best pull out all stops to ensure a Republican/Tea Party takeover of the Senate this year.

That said, in all honesty, I am always flummoxed, and not a little disappointed, when I hear patriots feverishly warn against and whine about a liberal takeover of the Supreme Court, asserting that a liberal-dominated court will inevitably result in more socialism and statism.

Well, in truth, with or without a liberal majority on the bench, the judicial world as we now know it isn't a lot to celebrate. Yes, over the years liberal justices have done incalculable harm, even more so than self-identified conservative judges. Years of faulty and revisionist case law, to which both schools have often been a party, is ample proof of the harm already perpetrated by a runaway judiciary inconsistently faithful to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.

But let's not forget that OUR permitting the States to routinely submit to the federal judiciary to fairly settle constitutional disputes with the federal government (a surefire recipe for disaster), and OUR allowing the omniscient courts to imperiously overrule voter referendums, thus imposing  THEIR own will on the people, have also materially contributed to the breakdown in constitutional order. So, who's really at fault? What is the proximate cause of this breakdown in the constitutional order?  We are! Overweaning liberal judges are merely a symptom of OUR failure. And at some point, WE will have to do something about it if our "representatives" won't.

My point is that the harm occasioned by judicial overreach--whether by liberal or conservative jurists--can be effectively thwarted IF IF IF the States and We the People assert their 9th and 10th Amendment constitutional powers.

Contrary to the opinion of many brainwashed law students, it is the U.S. Constitution--NOT the "Supreme" Court--which is the supreme law of the land, and both the 9th and 10th Amendments,  both very much essential components of that Constitution, were intended to ensure constitutional supremacy, balance of powers and liberty.

When SCOTUS overreaches its authority with unconstitutional rulings/opinions, then the States, per the 9th and the 10th Amendments, are legally and morally obliged to summarily nullify, aka render null, void and unenforcable, those rulings. In this regard, the framers' intention was crystal clear.

The Constitution works brilliantly to safeguard liberty, our core principles of checks and balances and separation of powers, but ONLY if it is honored and enforced by all parties to the federal-state contract we call the Constitution. And if the States, equal parties to that contract, are too weak-kneed or corrupted by federal handouts to honor the supreme law of the land, that being the Constitution and no other, then it is encumbent upon We the People, the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, to assert our central role as the guardian of the Constitution. If that means nationwide well-coordinated civil disobedience, then so be it! If it means Tea Parties marching on and, yes, occupying our State houses to "convince" them to assert their authority over a runaway federal government, so be it. No more pussy-footing, no more whining. Going forward, only meaningful a-c-t-i-o-n will suffice.

Let this sink in: only with the single-minded enforcement of the 9th and 10th Amendments by the States and/or the People can our constitutional republic be restored. And the ball is clearly in OUR court.

In short, folks, we need to get very seriously organized if Obama is re-elected. But we also need to get organized even if Romney is elected. The growth of the imperial presidency, to say nothing of the Supreme Court's imperiousness, screams for remedial grassroots action.

In truth, the Supreme Court, a servant of the central government, has become an essentially unbridled, unaccountable, black-robed oligarchy, beholden to its federal creators alone and driven by personal, political and ideological agendas. Tragically, the court's faithfulness to the Constitution has long ago dissipated. Revealingly, Gov. Hughes, who served as Chief Justice from 1930-1941, asserted that "We are under a Constitution, BUT the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Wow! And that pretty much sums up where we are now. Absent congressional remedial action, without meaningful grassroots opposition, judicial supremacy will continue to effectively trump constitutional supremacy and, in so doing, the judiciary will continue to dangerously undermine the very underpinnings of our republic.

For me, THE burning question is this: by our disengagement, submissiveness, benign neglect, or by our merely hoping that the problem will eventually go away, will we continue to permit the foundational collapse of what remains of our constitutional republic? We each need to  honestly answer that question for ourselves and for our families.

"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 [the Constitution], and take such measure to redress the injury to the Constitution  as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 33.

"I know of no safe despository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; this is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional powers." Thomas Jefferson

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiselesss foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the state governments into the jaws of that which feeds them; the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary." Thomas Jefferson

Friday, September 14, 2012

QE3: Magic Elixir or Our Last Hurrah?

The imperial Federal Reserve's shocking and mystifying decision to further flood the market with more increasingly worthless dollars reminds me of Dr. Einstein's definition of insanity, that being "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

QE3 will NOT ease the nearly 20% real unemployment rate, nor will  it spur economic growth. If anything, QE3 will hasten our acceleration toward the looming financial cliff.

It must surely be painfully obvious now to all but the willfully ignorant that bloated, profligate and irresponsible government coupled with an unaccountable Federal Reserve are THE principle reasons for our economic malaise and headlong rush toward national economic suicide.

While those who have wisely hoarded precious metals will see the value of those assets increase, the rest of us will have to grapple with painfully increasing gasoline prices and shrinking disposable income, neither of which will lead to economic recovery.

Good luck, America. You'll need it.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Libyan & Egyptian Islamists Honor 9/11

The death of our Ambassador and several of our diplomatic staff in Benghazi as well as our timid response both to that outrage as well as to the violent attack on our Cairo embassy is symptomatic of a weak, ineffectual, permissive Administration whose sympathies are stunningly confused, if not suspect, and whose knee-jerk response is to apologize for America even when it is America which is attacked without provocation.

And what does Barry say during his press conference? "The World" must stand together in the face of this outrage. "The World"? How about this Adminstration? Why must it always be a world thing with Obama? Because he's a hardcore globalist who holds the world in higher esteem than the United States. He's an unmitigated fraud, an unconvincing word- smith, an un-American disaster. By my count, he mentioned "world" and "globe" as many times as he did America. Tedious and shameful. Though sensitive and heartfelt in his comments before the press corps this morning, his response fell utterly flat. FLAT! And totally inadequate.

Our Ambassador and three other diplomatic staff were slaughtered! Let that sink in. "Outrageous and disgusting", as Romney described the violence, seemd far more appropriate and representative of Americans' genuine outrage. Conversely, Obama's remarks were mind-numbingly tepid and painfully measured.

Again, the Administration's knee-jerk policy of apologizing and tempering Americans' ire when our national honor and internationally accepted standards of diplomatic conduct are so brazenly violated by our enemies are wearing thin--very thin!

My understanding is that the marine guard was ordered to stand down. I also understand that neither Libyan nor Egyptian police timely intervened with appropriate force. Yes, the mobs might not have been representative of Libyans and Egyptians in general--and that too remains questionable--but the lack of appropriate intervention by their police forces to protect US embassy grounds is justifiable cause for serious doubts as to how widespread Libyan and Egyptian support for those attacks may have been.

As Romney indicated, how the Administration handled this situation demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect and understanding on the part of this Administration for America's fundamental principles. I couldn't agree more.

Hillary's response--after the embassy apology--seemed balanced and sensible, though the lack of strength and appropriate indignation was notable. To her credit, she did indicate that the Administration would not rest until those responsible are caught and punished. Obama echoed that reassurance. How very moving. But, how very uninspired. And just who in Egypt and Libya will dare to hunt down and arrest the perpetrators of this Islamist violence?

And just to keep it interesting, nearly simultaneously Prime Minister Netanyahu's request for a meeting with the Obama to discuss the menacing Iranian nuclear threat was spurned. Afterall, in Barry's Progressive mind campaigning for four more years of failure, malaise and fundamental transformation as well as his obscene obsession with golfing take priority. No surprise there. To even the casual observer, Barry has been the Campaigner-in-Chief for nearly four years now, attending a scant 48% of those pesky national security briefings during that time. Right on top of things, huh?

What the Hell is this effete, liberal, aristocratic Progressive in the White House thinking? Dare I even speculate?

In times like this, yes, we must be cautious, take into account the bigger picture, the longer range effects of any actions taken, but I heard NOTHING in terms of deliberate US "actions" which would indicate that Libya or Egypt would be punished for failing to protect our embassies. NOTHING. And that is beyond annoying and unsettling. That is inexcusable. An attack on any embassy is an act of war!!! Am I calling for war? No! But, I am calling for credible, persuasive, punitive action.

Is it any wonder our foreign policy appears to be adrift and confused? Is it any wonder why our enemies no longer respect or fear us?

And on top of this, our defense budget is likely to be drastically reduced while Obama insists upon "taxing the rich" before he disallows sequestration to taking effect at the end of the year. Could it be this untrustworthy scoundrel's intention really is to bring down the United States? That question must now be taken seriously.

Anyone who thinks we're in good shape, either economically or militarily, is either willfully ignorant or hopelessly delusional. This is a mess of the first order. Obama and his un-American Progressive minions MUST go!!!! This Progressive plague, which I firmly believe constitute the "enemy within",  must be removed from our political system once and for all.

Today's scorecard: Radical Islam 1. America 0.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Will Obama's Secrecy Finally Precipitate a Constitutional Crisis?

Over the years, I and many others have delved into the matter of Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, and have carefully explained the bases for our very serious doubts regarding his qualifications.

One of those concerns was raised by me in my December 2008 blog post cited below, in which I questioned Obama's presidential ineligibility on the basis of his likely being an Indonesian citizen, a citizenship status which may not have been legally remedied by Obama when he returned to the United States and before his presidential run in 2008.

"And when young Obama was taken to Indonesia by his adoptive Indonesian parent, Leo Soetoro, where he attended a school to which only Indonesian citizens were permitted to enroll and where school records list OBH's citizenship as Indonesian, shouldn't a reasonable person be expected to ask questions? Or was that simply a matter of fraudulent enrollment? Who knows?"

Now, all hell is breaking loose yet again. Unlike any President before him, "Mr. Transparency" is definitely keeping the mysteries about his background and doubts about his eligibility painfully alive.

Wayne Root of RootforAmerica, a 1983 Columbia graduate, the same year Obama was reportedly graduated from Columbia, is reporting that none of his fellow pre-law/PoliSci classmates at Columbia have any knowledge or recollection of either a Barack Obama or of a Barry Soetoro in their class, the latter being Barack's adoptive Indonesian moniker. 

More importantly--and as many of us have questioned for a very long time now--Root asks how Obama, of limited financial means, financed his Ivy League education. So, buttressed by a report from a Breitbart investigator in Jakarta who telephonically confirmed to Root earlier today that he has impeccable proof that Obama, aka Soetoro, was/is an Indonesian Citizen, Root speculates that Barack, or whatever his legal name may be, most likely relied upon his "foreign student" status to access the needed funding and that this is precisely the reason why Obama has sealed his college records--that reason being to conceal the fact that he, Obama, aka Soetoro, is not a US Citizen and, thus, ineligible to be President.

To this very day, US Citizen Barack Obama or Indonesian Citizen Barry Soetoro remains a proverbial puzzle wrapped in an enigma, and until his real identity and presidential eligibility are proven without a shadow of a doubt the Republic remains in mortal danger. 

If Root's speculation is on the mark, and with Sheriff Arpaio's investigative posse relentlessly on Obama's tail,  it is not unrealistic to conclude that a constitutional crisis of the first order is surely at hand: we may actually see an imposter President and a host of Democratic Party co-conspirators arrested and tried for assorted felonies and treason. The exposure of a putative president would precipitate an unprecedented crisis which our nation must face and a crisis we can and should endure. And the sooner the better. 

And here's to you, Senator Reid, and your fellow DNC apparatchiks. My profound thanks for finally opening Pandora's Box. You want Romney's tax returns? Fine. For a start, we want Obama's college records. ALL of them--his applications for admission and his grades.  (Gee, do I hear the pitter-patter of scurrying cockroaches? Yup! I believe I do.)

God save the Republic.

August 10, 2012 PostScript:
After I wrote this post, I quickly consulted my three immigration reference books. Upshot: Clearly, Barry, being under 18 while in Indonesia, could not have renounced his US Citizenship.
However, what I cannot absolutely determine is if Indonesia recognized dual citizenship at that time. I don't think they did. If not, then how did Barry become an Indonesian Citizen as reported by a Breitbart investigator in Jakarta yesterday? Did Barry's adoptive Indonesian dad, Lolo Soetoro, commit fraud in Indonesia in order to obtain Barry's Indonesian citizenship documents which both enabled Barry's enrollment in public school there as well as Barry's travelling to Pakistan at a time when Americans were disallowed entry? Not terribly burning questions, but part of the whole ball of wax.
More importantly, since the Breitbart investigator claims to have irrefutable proof of Barry's Indonesian Citizenship, can a dual citizen (American and Indonesian in this case, for example) legally apply for F-1 or J-1 student status in the US? If so, can s/he do so AFTER s/he has re-entered the US of A? Everything I've so far read is that a foreign student must apply at an American Consulate overseas BEFORE entry; that s/he must, in fact, be a bonafide alien; that to change their non-immigrant status (which Barry apparently wasn't) after entry requires considerable, if not insuperable, hoops to navigate. And if Barry was a US Citizen, despite his dual citizenship, how could he have been even remotely eligible for F-1 or J-1 status? More fraud by his having hidden his dual citizenship from I-20 school authorities?
On a related note, I had read some time ago that a Palestinian friend, Khalidi Mansour, had arranged college funding from Arab benefactors for US Citizen Barry's higher education expenses. If true, that would render the issue of dual citizenship irrelevant for purposes of determining how Barry was financially able to attend Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. But, if Barry did attend those schools, why did none of his classmates know of him? Were the universties paid off so extravagantly by Khalidi's well-heeled Arab friends that Barry's actually attending classes was unnecessary ? Who knows? Well, Barry, Khalidi and the school adminstrations, of course.
Endless questions still.
Still searching, but, at the moment, I have considerably more questions than answers about Mr. Enigma. And we all know Barry WON"T divulge his sealed records. So, the mystery, the questions, the anxiety continue.
Also, and most importantly, would the framers have recognized a dual citizen as being eligible to be president? Absolutely not.  Aftreall, the framers' whole purpose of obliging a presidential candidate to be a "natural born citizen" was to prevent dual allegiances. To put the dual citizenship problem to rest, wouldn't Barry have been required to somehow conceal his Indonesian citizenship upon his return to the USA, this to eliminate any qualification issues to run for prez?

Though I've never seriously doubted his US Citizenship, his "natural born citizenship" is quite another matter. On the NBC issue, the shameless and nonstop disinformation and obfuscation on the part of his acolytes and apologists have been nothing short of mind-boggling, infuriating and entirely unhelpful.

One thing this sorry episode has taught me: if intelligent, hard-working, educated and otherwise upright Germans could have been persuaded to buy into and excuse tyranny, then ANY person in ANY country at ANY time can also succumb to the razzle-dazzle of a glittering smile & false promises. That reality should be extremely troubling to us all.

Sadly, while the truth inevitably comes out, it is often at a terrible price to both innocents and perpetrators alike. In the end, however, we may all have to pay that awful price. Just hope it's sooner rather than later. Would be nice to get it all behind us--the sooner the better.

Another concern: IF Barry is denied a second term at the ballot box, will all of these matters be properly investigated and appropriate punishment meted out to all violators? Or will the investigations be dropped? I honestly don't know what I can reasonably expect anymore of our terribly corrupted political system.

With the prospect of punishment staring Barry and his Progressive minions in the face, my guess is that they will stop at NOTHING to prevent their defeat at the ballot box in November. And then there's the intervening lame-duck period between the election in November and the possible swearing in of a new President in January 2013. All sorts of mischief can be perpetrated during that period in the interest of "national security".  That prospect should give us all pause. All I can say is it's going to be one helluva six months ahead of us. Anything can happen. My advice: buckle up, keep your family and friends close, and be ready for anything.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Is it too Late to Restore Constitutional Order?

Though the first sentence in Article II of the Constitution provides that “ executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”, none of the Framers or Ratifiers at any time suggested that this sentence would grant any executive authority beyond  those specific powers enumerated in Sections 2 and 3. 
In short, presidential powers are well-defined and limited to faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress and, with studious and proper legislative oversight, to preside over foreign affairs.  A Chief Executive's violating these obligations was determined by the Founders  to be a “breach of trust” and, therefore,  grounds for impeachment and removal from office.                                                                                
Clearly, over the years, Executive powers under both Democrat and Republican chief executives have grown exponentially  to the extent that the range of those exercised powers would stagger our republican Founders. (That said, the extent to which Barack Obama has usurped authority is beyond staggering. His actions in this regard have been manifestly impeachable. And it is my guess that should Republicans sweep both the House and Senate in November, this President, if re-elected, stands a better than even chance of facing impeachment and removal from office. And despite the civil unrest that might result from such a remedial action, impeachment is precisely what our Founders and the Constitution they crafted would have counseled.)

So, how did this dangerous expansion of presidential powers come to pass? Very simply, because government, a creature of human nature, is, if ineffectively checked, predisposed to expanding its authority and power. And in designing the Constitution, the Framers were painfully aware of and warned against this natural tendancy toward centralization and, ulitmately, tyranny. Not surprisingly, despite their warnings we've permitted ourselves to slip into the clutches of Statism and lawlessness.

For whatever reason--much of it having to do with the enormous growth in the federal government and its expansion into areas never envisioned by the Founders or sanctioned by the Constitution--Congress has ceded or otherwise delegated enormous powers to the Executive Branch and, by extension, to that branch’s officers and departments. The catastrophic result of this irrresponsible congressional delegation of powers and judicial consent is twofold: an imperial presidency and an essentially unchecked Fourth Branch of government, that being the nearly omnipotent federal bureaucracy which, in  a real sense, manages our increasingly unwieldy and intrusive federal government apparatus.  
Thus, we must now accept the crystal-clear reality that “throwing the bums out” in Congress is no longer a viable remedy; it is merely a desperate, shortsighted and delusional reformist’s rallying cry “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.  In truth, only if the wings of the Executive Branch are clipped and the unbridled Fourth Branch is downsized and more properly supervised by Congress, "the people's house", can genuine constitutional order be restored.
Tragically, what NO ONE has been talking about in this campaign is the need to reign in BOTH the Executive Branch and Leviathan’s runaway bureaucracy which have been eating away at the very vitals of our republic.  Only by deliberately restricting presidential powers to those which faithfully comport with the Constitution, and both eliminating or drastically reducing the power of the Fourth Branch of government can our inexorable slide toward tyranny be arrested.
Is it too late? Probably. And if that’s the case, then the several States, at the insistence of an aroused citizenry, should re-examine their unhealthy association with an increasingly corrosive central government no longer faithful to the Constitution or to the People. In faithful pursuit of constitutional order, States must understand that they are duty-bound to strike out on their own, either unilaterally or in alliance with like-minded sister States.
Thus, the burning question for me is this: no matter the terrible price one must pay, should a patriot who values his liberty continue to routinely and blindly submit to the self-destructive, albeit high-sounding, Lincolnesque notion of “indivisible unity”? Not no. But, Hell no!

Unless constitutional order is restored, I dare say that disunion ought, of necessity, be embraced. And given the chasmic ideological divide existing in the country, I really don't believe disunion anything but inevitable.
“I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive; most bad government has grown out of too much government; the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to the separation.” (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776)

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Happy 4th of July!

Though our political representatives are entrusted with the responsibility of selflessly honoring their pledge to defend and uphold the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, on this, the 236th birthday of our Republic, let no American patriot ever forget that, ultimately, it is "We the People"--not Congress, not the President, and most certainly not the Supreme Court--upon whom lies the sacred duty to ensure that our Constitution and our individual liberties are properly safeguarded.

As Liberty's Keepers, the Final Arbiters, it is We the People who are Supreme. It is we who are ultimately responsible for determining what is and what is not constitutional, what is just and unjust, and what constitutes tyranny and treason.

We are, therefore, duty-bound to fully restore the Republic to its former glory, the first step toward achieving that lofty goal being the eradication of the Progressive contagion which currently plagues all levels of our increasingly intrusive government.

Constantly challenged and often overwhelmed by a litany of stupefying Progressive outrages, it is easy to simply surrender, to disengage; but to save our republic, patriots cannot--must not-- fold. Our duty is to relentlessly and fearlessly re-assert our God-given rights to constitutional self-government and individual freedom. We must never accept anything less ever again. More to the point, we must no longer tolerate nor otherwise accommodate the Progressives' ruthless and pernicious effort to fundamentally transform the United States into a utopian tyranny.

And always remember this: the Constitution cannot defend itself. That responsibility lies squarely upon our shoulders. Shirk that sacred duty and we condemn ourselves and our posterity to oppression and meaninglessness.

("...[you have] a Republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin, when emerging from Constitution Hall in Philadelphia, 1787.)

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Federal Imperialism vs State Territorial Sovereignty

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 equity, 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 consequential constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty degraded, constitutional order imperiled and common sense 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 spinmeistering 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 seemingly 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 overeach 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 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 maintain 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 people 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

“In the Constitution, the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea…of people, territory and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” State of Texas v White (1868)

“Nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to absurd or unjust consequences.” Abraham Lincoln (1861)

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Marco Rubio: a Constitutional Dilemma

My beef with a Rubio VP candidacy is that it creates a painful moral dilemma for those of us who respect the Constitution and who are determined to uphold its inviolability.

Like millions of other anti-Progressive, anti-Marxist, anti-"living constitution" voters, I am Conservative and, most importantly, an originalist.

That said, though the prospect of four more years of subversive Progressive dominion in DC is fearsome indeed, I may be compelled to stay home in November. Why? After years of carefully researching the meaning of “natural born citizen”, it is painfully clear to me that, like our putative President, Sen. Rubio is, per the Presidential Clause, constitutionally ineligible for that office. I have seen absoutely NO persuasive constitutional evidence to the contrary and I am, therefore, acutely disinclined to violating my oath merely to placate the political party with which I am currently registered.

If, like the Progressives, the GOP also perversely ignores the Constitution's Presidential Clause, in good conscience I cannot–I should not–violate my oath to uphold the Constitution. As it should be for every patriot, the Constitution should ALWAYS trump blind, self-serving parochial party loyalty. That is the way our Founders would see it.

I can only hope and pray that the Romney campaign seeks an affirming SCOTUS advisory opinion on Rubio’s eligibility before tapping him for the VP slot. While Mr. Rubio is stellar in so many ways, we should vote with our heads and not with our hearts.

The widespread willful ignorance on this issue which has contaminated nearly every part of our society, has been nothing short of shameful and alarming.

And if Obama is re-elected, he should be promptly impeached, convicted and removed from office for myriad constitutional violations, not the least of which is his ineligibility. For this reason alone, we must redouble our efforts to take back the Senate where a 2/3 majority to convict and remove a president is required. We should then go after those co-conspirators, in whatever dark corner we may find them hiding, who had a hand in perpetrating this insidious fraud on the American people.