Search This Blog

Friday, September 27, 2013

Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) Warns of Civil War

Earlier today on the Senate floor, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) assailed those attempting to defund Obamacare with these lofty and inspirational words:  "It's dangerous. It's very dangerous. I believe, Mr. President, we are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now. Every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War."

Aside from exposing his woeful ignorance of history--it wasn't a "civil war" by any academic stretch--he may have unwittingly probed the truth. In fact, we ARE, since Obama's election,  at "one of the most dangerous points in our history". But, it certainly isn't because the Conservatives or the Tea Partiers are irrationally pressing to repeal, defund or delay the Obamacare  horror. It is precisely because the Progressives are hellbent to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" into another failed utopian state.

Like it or not, Harkin and his verminous Progressive co-conspirators are totally responsible for the historic spike in State nullification actions around the country, to say nothing of the burgeoning secessionist sentiment now sweeping this once venerable union of States. Were we a Republic ideologically at peace with ourselves, this turmoil wouldn't be happening. Sadly, however, we are in the throes of a sinister and probably irremediable ideological struggle whose outcome, while still uncertain, is probably pre-ordained.

What Comrade Harkin and his Progressive apparatchiks are disinclined to appreciate is that not all Americans--especially those who are still alive, breathing and thinking--have any intention of going down with a sinking ship. Only suicidal and feckless ideologues of the neo-Marxist genre are willing to blindly follow that self-destructive path.

Over the years, we've been spoon-fed a lot of crap and drivel about secession and nullification--what it is and what it isn't; whether or not it is treasonous or legal. The short of it is that when all else fails to check tyranny both remedies are constitutional--no less so than rebellion and civil disobedience.

History and the wisdom of our Founders clearly demonstrate that  neither nullification nor secession is treasonous--unless, of course, you are one of the country's ruling elites today who disdainfully view the Constitution as a pesky document to be circumvented and violated if such actions advance one's self-serving ideological agenda and unquenchable thirst for power.

As I substantively explained in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", secession is absolutely, irrefutably, incontrovertibly constitutional and, therefore, lawful. Successful force of arms alone doesn't extinguish the unalienable rights of the People subjugated or the reserved powers of the States. (Note: there's a good reason why Confederate leaders weren't hauled into court for treason following the North's costly victory over the South. The North didn't want to lose in court what it thought it had won on the battlefield.)

Always remember that the union is based upon a contract between the sovereign States and the federal government, the former which created the latter. As in all contracts, if either party to that contract violates the terms of that contract (think Constitution), then the contract is null and void. Simple contract law. More precisely, those powers, stated or unstated, not specifically granted by the States to the federal government are, by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, solely vested in the States and/or the People. And nowhere in the Constitution or in our founding documents are secession and nullification prohibited or subject to federal review or sanction. (It is important to note that three States--look it up--conditioned their ratification of the Constitution upon their reserved right to secede if the federal government usurped undelegated powers, or if the contract no longer adequately served the sovereign interests of the States.)

Though over the years the States have been lulled into a condition of servility by obscenely huge unconstitutional federal giveaways, the Constitution can be ignored, but it can't be bought off. As is, it remains the Supreme Law of the land, and only the People, the final arbiters, through their duly elected representatives can amend it.

So, again, Harkin was unwittingly more right than he was wrong. Where he erred was in conveying the dimwitted notion that the union's dissolution is the fault of Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Partiers who oppose Obamacare.

Going forward, we need to expunge the dangerous revisionism and misinformation which stigmatize or otherwise delegitimize secession and nullification. In these precarious times, let the Founders be our guide. We negate or otherwise ignore sacred constitutional remedies at our own peril.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Latte? Thanks, But No Thanks.

In recent interviews and statements, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has made it clear that armed patrons are not welcome.

Unlike Peet's Coffee & Tea and Whole Foods, Schultz isn't refusing service to armed patrons, but in deference to those brainwashed unarmed patrons who might be intimidated by the appearance of firearms in their midst, Schultz asserts that he "prefers" that armed patrons not seek service at Starbucks establishments.

Ok. On the surface, this seems harmless enough. Right?
Well, not really.

No matter how one cuts, dices or spins it, what this gratuitous and discriminatory policy really means is that at Starbucks establishments law-abiding folks with licensed firearms are, in effect, persona non grata. Oh, they'll serve you okay. But, you're really not welcome. You're a gun-toter. Ouch.

Obviously, this policy exposes Starbuck's opinion regarding the sanctity of our 2nd Amendment constitutional rights. To all but the mentally impaired, Schultz's message is abundantly clear: while Starbucks won't refuse service to you, armed persons are a no-no, a threat, fearsome, and something to be stigmatized.

For me, the nub of the issue is this: abetted by a cynical and seductive Progressive policy to eliminate Americans' right to keep and bear arms, an odious anti-gun mindset is now gripping our country. And by its action, Starbucks is effectively buying into this insidious one-step-at-a-time Progressive goal of disarming Americans. Thus, in good conscience I cannot--will not--patronize Starbucks, for by doing so I too would be endorsing and encouraging this destructive anti-gun mindset.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Obama: "I Didn't Set a Red Line."

First Nancy Pelosi  at a press conference yesterday,  and  now Obama at a press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister today have shamelessly denied Obama’s setting a red line on Syrian use of chemical weapons.  Stunning in its lack of veracity, but entirely in character, clearly this guy and his Progressive minions cannot be trusted.
Today, the party's talking point is that the red line wasn’t Obama’s red line, it was “humanity’s” redline and the “world’s”  red line respectively. Well, at least he didn’t blame Bush or the Republicans—yet. If it weren’t so mendacious and embarrassing, it would be laughable. Like a spoiled, narcissistic child, this guy can’t take responsibility for anything he does wrong.  So much for principle and integrity. He possesses neither.

Terribly botched by our amateurish  Commander-in-Chief from the beginning, the  incompetence, mixed signals  and woeful lack of White House leadership nothwithstanding, on balance I still tend to support a better-late-then-never punitive and clearly defined military intervention in Syria designed to significantly degrade and deter Assad’s military assets, the underlying objective being to discourage like-minded violations by North Korea and Iran. Is it too late? I guess that remains to be seen.
Tragically, however, the Administration's having stupidly telegraphed our intended plan of attack, Syria is now rapidly shifting target locations and protecting them with human shields, an action which will surely result in otherwise avoidable collateral damage while minimizing our attack’s effectiveness.

What a terrible and entirely avoidable mess this feckless, unprincipled so-called President has perpetrated on the United States and a Free World still stunned by his embarrassing ineptitude and dishonesty.
Always the self-serving cynical politician with a penchant for blaming others, Obama is now asking Congress for authorization to act. But, adding to the endless muddle, in the same breath he asserts that if Congress votes against action, he will unilaterally take action anyway. Huh?

Anyone who trusts this guy's stability, maturity or integrity must be brain-dead.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a clear-headed grown-up--a statesman--in the White House again? Perhaps it would be much better for us all were he to remain on the golf course.

POSTSCRIPT: Looks like I spoke too soon. During a recent O'Reilly Factor interview, liberal operative James Carville blamed "Bush's mismanagement of the Iraq invasion" for Americans' anxiety over Syria. Yup. It's Bush's fault. Ya' just can't make this stuff up, folks. The shameless, unprincipled liberal blame game is relentless.