Is America's Transformation Inevitable?

When outrageous becomes the norm, we've already breached that much-touted tipping point and are now plunging headlong toward national suicide.

Despite the serial lawlessness, betrayal and incremental foundational self-destruction being perpetrated upon us by our political overseers, so many of us have either not noticed, not fully grasped the phenomenon, been stunned into compliance, or become inured.

Short on principled leaders and statesmen determined to faithfully defend our Constitution and absent an energetic and virtuous electorate--the very building blocks of a viable republic--an insidious and likely irreversible transformation of our way of life and governing principles is most certainly well underway. That said, one has to question if our Founders foresaw such changes and, if so, what would they have counseled?

Unlike the Articles of Confederation which established a "perpetual union"--and we can all see how "perpetual" that turned out to be--the Constitution's purpose was to establish a "more perfect union"--not perfect, but more perfect.

Stellar students of history, our Founders understood that no compact/contract could ever be perfect or perpetual; that all compacts, if breached,  are subject to the equitable remedy of rescission (annulment), which, in the context of our voluntary compact of States, is equivalent to the concept of a State's secession (withdrawal), the converse of a State's accession (consent to join).

Of special significance, never once did our perceptive Founders view the "more perfect union" of States as "indivisible", a self-serving Lincolnesque invention to justify the north's invasion of the south, or that our union, with or without a clash of arms, would stand the test of time. In fact, contingent on their grudging consent to ratify the Constitution, and with nary a peep of protest from either Federalists or Anti-Federalists, Maryland, Virginia and Rhode Island, the latter which ratified the Constitution only after George Washington's election, explicitly reserved their right to rescind/revoke their ratification, or, in other words, withdraw from the union, if they became disenchanted with the arrangement. Thus, the Founders--framers and ratifiers alike--never believed that withdrawal from the union would be anything but a principled, entirely lawful, natural, and foreseeable development.

From the outset, and despite outrageously muddled revisionist judicial opinions, e.g. Texas v White (1869), and decades of revisionist indoctrination following the deliberately misnamed  "civil war", this compact of States, the united States of America, was understood by the Founders to be strictly voluntary. And like it or not, this voluntary union remains just that--voluntary. And no amount of revisionism or political correctness can alter that foundational truth.

Like in any contractual relationship, violations occur and conditions develop which render the original contract of no further use, benefit or relevance to one or more parties to that contract. Thus, perpetual was never intended to convey permanence or immutability, but, like any contract, a temporariness dictated by the benefits derived from that relationship by the parties to that contract. (The Articles of Confederation is a good example of the realistic limitations of the word "perpetual" for, as we all know, the Articles of Confederation quickly outlived is usefulness and was replaced by the States and their citizens with a federal republic in 1788.)

Astute students of history, both the Framers and Ratifiers clearly understood that, over time, no man-made political system could successfully resist corruption, mutation, transformation and, yes, eventual self-destruction. In short, they understood that the  historical constancy of change and mankind's need to painfully re-learn history's unpleasant lessons is as hard-wired as DNA itself.

For reasonably serious students of history, there is nothing especially profound about the foregoing observations, but in these perilous times of gargantuan national debt, a chasmic ideological divide among the electorate and its representatives, relentless violations of the Constitution at all levels of government, rampant lawlessness and habitual mendacity among our political leadership, and, yes, crippling subversion of our political system and the country's cultural fabric from within, dramatic systemic change is not only inevitable, but is already taking place. In short, our rapid transformation from a federal union of States to a unitary corporatist-welfare state has been underway for some time now.

As for our federal republic, or what little remains of it, let's remember that a citizenry's commitment to political union at ANY price is sheer folly. If our economic, social and political systems fail to adequately safeguard our inalienable rights and our representative form of government, then our adherence to that political union is not only short-sighted, it is breathtakingly delusional and manifestly suicidal.

Going forward, I can only hope that preserving our God-given natural rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness will be our primary goal. And when it becomes crystal-clear that the federal union has failed us, then from a practical standpoint our options are limited to either emigrating to other more accommodating countries or relocating to those individual States within the current union where more fertile ground for constitutional and economic order may exist.

Remember that NOT ONCE did any of the Founders in any way deny our fundamental right to secede or revolt. (Indeed, the venerable Declaration of Independence, was our first successful act of secession, and the American Revolution our first act of revolution.)

From the outset, our Founders soberly understood that the union's days were, indeed, numbered. In fact, most of them would have been unsurprised by the so-called "civil war", though they would have bridled at the north's lawless actions to prevent the south's secession. At a terrible price in American treasure and lives, and only by application of overwhelming military force--not virtuous adherence to founding constitutional precepts--was the north able to quash the legitimate southern secession/war for independence in 1861. And, of course, the systemic legacy of that costly Pyrrhic northern victory has been nothing less than the substantive transformation of our federal republic into something very much at odds with the political arrangement our Founders had so carefully crafted and adopted. Why Pyrrhic? Because since the conclusion of the War for Southern Independence, States have become vassals of an essentially boundless central government, something our Founders would have roundly condemned. That said, however, it appears that most of us have accepted monarchical rule so long as we are able to effectively delude ourselves into believing that this union of States is still a "republic".

To a man, our Founders would be astonished that the union today, a shattered copy of what was originally conceived, still remains at all. Thus, as said, if our best efforts fail to restore constitutional order on a national level, and if the electoral process continues to fail to restore the union as originally conceived, then the original compact among the States is, for all practical purposes, null and void, and has been null and void for some time now. Unsurprisingly, authoritarianism and, eventually, disunion are but natural consequences of the foundational disintegration we have been experiencing since the War for Southern Independence.

Now more than ever, and in the face of insidious political correctness, ideological delusion, a widespread Pollyanna mentality, and pervasive historical revisionism, our foundational governing principles and rights demand our clear-headed attention and vigorous assertion if we are to successfully survive the political treachery which has befallen us. If we genuinely cherish those principles and rights, then it remains our duty to defend and advance them in any way we can. If history is any lesson, once lost, only the clash of arms can again restore those principles and rights. And in that regard, we can only hope that such a painful re-learning of history's lessons can be averted.

If we can prevent national dissolution by restoring constitutional order throughout the land, all well and good. But, ALL appropriate Founder-sanctioned remedies to successfully counter the malignant deconstruction of our system of governance must be on the table. That said, my personal view is that, short of a miracle, the foundational deterioration of our republican-free enterprise system is so nearly complete as to render that corruption irreversible, the consequence of which is that the successful restoration of constitutional order on a national level is most likely unattainable. Not a Pollyanna by nature, I am, therefore, expecting the deterioration to worsen, but am both hoping and working to reverse this corrosive process. So, while I'm not throwing in the towel just yet, I am refocusing on more realistic and achievable outcomes. And that is precisely what we should all be doing. But, for starters, we must all jettison the blinders which dangerously impair our ability to clearly see conditions as they really are.

So, to clear-eyed patriots everywhere: don't be overwhelmed into compliance by the lawlessness, double-talk, chicanery and propaganda spewed by our "leaders" and their minions; keep your eyes on the ball and be prepared for further painful and dramatic change. Very importantly, however, begin developing a workable plan to survive and prevail as Freemen. My suggestion is that we take careful measure of those States within the current union which are most likely to successfully succeed as independent republican states. It's always a good idea to know where best to relocate our families when the rubber really does hit the road.

Our choice is simple: weak-kneed, mindless submission to and continued accommodation with an alien order quite at odds with our founding principles or a single-minded commitment to restoring constitutional order--if not on a broad national level, then on a State or regional/confederated level. In any event, I can only hope that most Americans will clearly see the subversion taking place, make no excuses for it, and finally take appropriate action to reverse course.

Watching our republic slip into oblivion, I wonder just what it will take to rouse Americans from their stupor? What will it take to encourage them to take convincing remedial action to shake up the power structure and to actually resurrect the republic. I'm still wondering, and I'm still without an answer. I don't pretend to have the solution, but I do know that our doing more of the same, i.e. a little more than nothing, solves just that: nothing!

("Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world." A. Lincoln on the floor of the US House of Representatives, 1847.)

("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X of the US Constitution, 1791)

("If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in the union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' " Thomas Jefferson)

("...a breach of any one article [of the Constitution] by any one party, leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved." James Madison, The Madison Papers)

(Evaluating Lincoln's inspiring Gettysburg words that Union soldiers sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination, i.e. government of, by and for the people, H. L. Mencken asserted that "the Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.")

("If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." New York Tribune, 1860)

On Executive Lawlessness: What MUST We Do?

Of and by themselves, whining and studiously explaining the blatant unconstitutionality of Obama’s pending immigration executive order is a foolish exercise in futility.

The answer is to isolate and debilitate Obama. Cut him off at the knees.

If Obama recklessly carries out his threat to issue a sweeping and illegal immigration executive order, our congressional representatives--with tens of thousands of American patriots at their sides--must encircle the White House and demand his resignation! Such assertive, unified action will bring it all to a head one way or the other. This lawless Chief Executive will either resign or pull his lawless executive order. Chastened, perhaps he will then behave like a law-abiding President of the United States until his merciful departure in 2016.

In any event, merely chest-pounding and complaining will no longer be enough to stop the tyranny. Clearly, Obama's achieving his alien ideological goals--not upholding his oath of office or ensuring the Rule of Law--remains the menacing driving force behind all he does. A demonstrably serial liar and neo-Marxist, it is now time to stop him!

Congressional representatives should also use their bully pulpits by appealing directly to the States and to federal employees to ignore all such orders forthwith. Congress should also withhold any funding used to execute any illegal executive orders.

Better the temporary shutdown of a corrupt government than the complete collapse of our constitutional republic.

This is about so much more than simple-minded politics. It’s about safeguarding the doctrine of separation of powers and the very survival of our republic. If Obama–or any Chief Executive– is permitted to routinely get away with such brazen acts of lawlessness, the precedent, like a malignant cancer, will render the Constitution moribund and the Rule of Law an irrelevancy. We would, indeed, become a "banana republic". Are we really willing to accept that?

P.S. I understand the Constitutional Sheriffs Association is planning to descend on DC if Obama commits this crime. If so, then perhaps the Association can lead this effort. Sitting on our hands and hoping for the best or leaving it to fate alone is utterly irresponsible and suicidal.

"The most basic reason for a community or a nation to set up a system of government is to assure its inhabitants that the rights of the people shall be protected and preserved." Thomas Jefferson

"In the face of tyranny, always permit our Founders to be our guide. To prevail, we must be fearless, tenacious and unequivocal in our steadfast defense of Liberty."

How to Beat the Liberal-Progressive Democrat Machine

Most Americans understand the mortal threat posed by Modern Liberals-Progressives-Democrats: their unbridled insanity, shameless mendacity, ruthlessness; their visceral ideological loathing of the Constitution, free enterprise and individual liberty; and their relentless effort to "fundamentally transform the United States of America".

Conservatives continually point out the folly and perfidy of Liberals:  their hypocrisy, terribly failed policies, insidious racial and gender politics, deceit, and their subversive goal to destroy what precious little remains of this constitutional republic.

To blunt the Liberal machine, in a characteristically gentle, civilized, logical and, yes, self-defeating, manner we Conservatives-Republicans have tried to reason with them, to compromise with them, and to carefully explain to the American voters the demonstrative destructiveness of Progressive-Liberal policies--so far, however, with spectacular ineffectiveness.

So what's the answer? How do Conservatives-Republicans put the Democrats on their heels and politically prevail? How do we defeat the Progressive-Alinskyite machine?

Well, it seems it's a careful mix of Machiavelli, George Patton, Madison Avenue, Sun Tzu, commonsense and a heavy dose of some good 'ole American grit and determination!

Today, I read what is, for all practical purposes, a powerful political expose and primer regarding what the Democratic Party and its horribly destructive policies over the years have really been all about and what exactly Conservatives must understand and do in order to prevail at the ballot box. Entitled "Take No Prisoners" by David Horowitz, who has an incomparable insight into how the radical left operates, the following are some especially salient excerpts from his masterfully instructive and timely book. Republican campaigners, take note:

The most important battle in the world today is not being waged in the Middle East but here at home, in the United States.

If you don't come to the arena  ready to fight a political war, the Democrats will. And they will win. The passions that motivate them are self-righteousness and hate. They hate conservatives and Republicans, and think they are evil; they are missionaries, and their politics is a religion that provides them with a meaning for their existence. 

If forced to fight, then fight to win! In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy's fighting ability.

Democrats see history as something to transcend, not as providing a reservoir of experience from which they must learn; dishonesty is fundamental to the progressive cause since the cause is always about an imagined future whose panaceas cannot pass the test of experience.

The Democrats' primary agenda is not to promote practical solutions to complex problems; their only consistent agenda is power, which they hope to use to fundamentally transform America into a guardian state; the goal of each progressive program is the subordination of the private sector to the power of the state. 

Hope works, but fear is a stronger and more compelling emotion. 

Campaigns are supposed to make the other candidate unlikeable. (Your opponent is never described as a "good man", a "nice guy".)

Republicans target the problems; Democrats target the politics.

[Republicans] need to accept that Democrats are going to practice the politics of personal destruction and attribute to Republicans the sins they themselves have committed. They do it because that's the way they win.

Why are Republicans so reluctant to name the victims of Democrat policies, particularly the victims among America's minorities and working classes?

You must convince people you care about them before they'll care about what you have to say. When you speak, don't forget that sound bite is all you have. Whatever you have to say, make sure to say it loud and clear. Keep it simple and keep it short--a slogan is always better. Repeat it often. Put it on television. In politics, television is reality; images--symbols and sound bites--will always prevail. Focus your message and repeat it over and over again; what you project through images is what you are.

Suggested sound bite for Republicans: "Taxes for bureaucrats out of the pockets of the people."

You must define yourself in ways that people understand. You must give people hope in your victory and make them fear the victory of your opponent.

If Republicans want to persuade minorities they care, they have to stand up for them. They have to defend them. They have to show that Democrats are playing them for suckers, that Democrats are exploiting them, oppressing them, and profiting from their suffering--an easy case to make if there were Republicans willing to make it. 

For Republicans to win, it is necessary to compete with Democrats on the caring issues, to reach beyond the partisan core and expand the conservative base. 

Politics isn't just about reality. If it were, good principles and good policies would win every time. It's about images and symbols and the emotions they evoke. Using the romance of the underdog against the Democrats is the best way to neutralize their attack.

In political warfare, if only one side is shooting, the other side will soon be dead.

For Democrats, politics is not just about who will run the government. It's about the nature of government itself; Democrats regard politics as a religious war.

To win, it helps if you have good principles and good policies. But having a good image for yourself and attaching a bad image to your opponent is even better. In politics, as in other battles, what is decisive is how you fight. If you are losing, you need to look to yourself for the reason why you are not doing better. (In the long run, the American people will do the right thing.)

Because Conservative expectations are low, they easily become self-fulfilling visions of defeat.

Democrats will not become "reasonable" until the American people understand what they are doing. The only way this will happen is if Republicans make the Democrats' oppression of the poor and minority children the focus of their political attack; the attack must expose the Democrats' hypocrisy, tarring their character in the same way and to the same degree that current Democratic attacks taint conservatives. It must pack the emotional wallop that will neutralize the assault. 

Elections are driven by emotions, not reason, and when it comes to mobilizing political emotions, Democrats beat Republicans, hands down. While the Democratic attack appeals to the base emotions of envy, resentment, and fear, Republicans' response to Democrats' attacks is ineffective because it speaks to voters in a language which is abstract, unemotional, and indirect. 

Republicans win national elections only when they put national security issues at the center of their campaigns.

When Democrats attack, they speak from the same text, when they march to the polls, they march in lockstep; because Republicans speak with many voices, their message is diluted, hard to hear, and difficult to understand; Republicans do not frame their campaigns as moral crusades and do not mobilize their troops under the banner of a morally uplifting, unifying idea. 

It is time [for the Republicans] to connect the struggles for individual freedom at home and the defense of our free society abroad, and to make them one.

To make a strong case for limited government and individual freedom, conservatives need to address the concern that Americans have for the well-being of others. They must speak to Americans' hearts and not just their pocketbooks.

Re Tea Party and the Republican Party: Understanding that conservatives disagree on tactics, not fundamentals, is crucial to keeping the marriage alive. A tactical difference is not grounds for divorce.

Fighting fire with fire means throwing the Democrats' atrocities against black and brown Americans in their faces every time they open their mouths. It means condemning them for destroying the lives of millions of poor black and Hispanic children. It means taking up the cause of the victims and indicting the progressive perpetrators. 

I could easily and enthusiastically go on, but I think you can all see how critically important and timely this wonderfully readable and instructive book really is. Obviously, I highly recommend this book to every Republican-Conservative campaigner, consultant and leader who is genuinely determined to achieve electoral success and a restoration of constitutional order in America. I can only hope that Rince Priebus has taken the time to read it and to share its wisdom with fellow Republicans running for office.

To the Conservative-Republican-Tea Party alliance: this is a MUST-READ-NOW book!

Utah Governor Bows to Federal Judiciary

In response to the Supreme Court's deferral to a lower court's decision to override Utah's ban against gay marriages, Utah Governor Gary Herbert announced his intention today to "uphold the rule of law" by permitting gay marriages in Utah.

While he expressed his disappointment and even voiced his belief that defining gay marriage was within the purview of State authority, in the next breath he cavalierly yielded to the federal judiciary, thus violating what appeared to be his own sincere commitment to adhere to the rule of law.

Like so many of his other gubernatorial peers throughout the country, and by his dismaying self-contradictory stance in this matter, Gov. Herbert demonstrates that he is both confused and terribly ignorant of just what constitutes the "rule of law". I can only hope that this plague of ignorance gripping our State leadership throughout the country is unwitting and remediable.

For me, the issue is NOT merely a matter of whether or not gay marriage should be legalized by Utah or any other State, but, far more importantly, it is a matter of constitutional law, that law, the Supreme Law of the Land, with which Governor Herbert appears to be at once so fervently enamored and yet so terribly conflicted.

To Governor Herbert: The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution--NOT the federal judiciary!!!!! 

Thus, if the Governor is, as he asserts, committed to "upholding the rule of law", then, in accordance with his oath of office, that is precisely what he should do. In this instance, however, he flagrantly abdicated to the federal judiciary and, in so doing, he, in fact, abandoned the "rule of law".

The Supremacy Clause (Art VI para 2) grants supremacy to federal law/dictates only to the extent that those laws/dictates fall within the scope of clearly defined federal powers (Art 1). Per the 10th Amendment, those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government reside with the individual States and its People. These residual powers, whether enumerated or implied, are limited only by Art I Sec 8, Art I Sec 10 and Art VI para 2 of the Constitution. In other words, those powers not specifically delegated by the States and the People to the federal government are unarguably vested in the States and the People. Thus, like a whole host of matters these days, the federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to define gay marriage in the States. Period! Fullstop!

So, why is Governor Herbert and so many other elected State officials routinely deferring to federal laws/edicts/rules? My guess is that it is born of ignorance, willful or otherwise, but, more than likely, a burning and suicidal desire for an unencumbered stream of federal handouts.

For Governor Herbert and his gubernatorial peers, two clear, concise quotes for your attention and compliance:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." (10th Amendment, US Constitution, 1791)

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison (The Federalist #45)

Restoration of constitutional order and the proper balance of power between the States and the federal government cannot be achieved until elected State officials dust off, read and faithfully adhere to our foundational constitutional principles. Only in this responsible way can the Rule of Law be achieved.

Until this pervasive and dangerous inclination on the part of our leaders to ignore the clear meaning of the Constitution is reversed, what precious little remains of our constitutional republic will soon slip into oblivion. In short, this sort of insidious suicidal ignorance of the Law must come to a screeching halt--and soon!!!

*OPINERLOG Comments on News Headlines

Boehner to take Obama to federal court on executive overreach?

Impeachment won't work. Filing suit won't work. Only defunding can alter this regime’s reckless course. Ultimately, of course, the most efficacious and peaceful remedy is for the States to assert their 10th Amendment power to nullify any and all federal laws/edicts/regs/rulings which are patently unconstitutional. 

If the States refuse to play in the federal sandbox, the feds will have no option but to pound sand.

Obama insists US won’t get dragged back into Iraq

While I wasn't surprised by Obama's signature timidity, overall I agree with his tack.

That said, it is clear this ISIS catastrophe could have been avoided had Obama, always the rigid and politically-driven ideologue, adopted the clear-headed advice of our military leadership to maintain a respectable military force in Iraq. But, we all know Obama didn't vigorously push for a SOF agreement as he should have. This, of course, created a power vacuum which ISIS quickly filled. Also, with such a supportive residual force, the US could have more successfully influenced Maliki and, more than likely, averted Maliki's stupid, self-destructive military firings and appointments which crippled Iraq’s well-trained and well-equipped---but entirely demoralized---army.

Like in Korea and Europe, keeping a military presence in Iraq was slum dunk obvious.

Kids, ideologues and geeky alternative universe globalists, academics and Progressives in charge of our government and foreign policy is akin to the kiss of death.

Bye-bye Iraq, and hello to another 9/11 tragedy, or tragedies. 

One bright possibility in this otherwise dreary picture: the stoic Kurds, always a reliable and determined ally of the USA in the Middle East and second only to Israel, will most certainly achieve their sovereignty this time around. They bloody well earned it!

Obama Thinks You’re Stupid, that’s Why

It always gets back to cause and effect.

Sadly, the pervasive self-delusion, apathy and willful ignorance gripping the country are the culprits. Obama and his Progressive minions are but symptoms of a dumbed-down, hopelessly unprincipled population. We've met the enemy and it is US.

The President of the United States has lost his mind

Has he gone insane? Not any more insane than any other neo-Marxist ideologue.

No, this guy is an extremely competent obfuscator, prevaricator, saboteur--a coldly calculating radical Statist.

In short, he knows precisely what he's doing even if the results of his ruinous actions imperil America and violate historical economic and political foundational truths.

Socialists and Communists NEVER learn.

On Climate Change, Sen. Landrieu Stands With Coal, Against Obama

Let's be clear: Landrieu stands with Landrieu, NOT coal.

Ben Shapiro's Obama Solution: 'Prosecution Not Impeachment'

Short of a coup d'etat or outright revolution, the solution is for the House to withhold funding and for the States to assert their 10th Amendment authority to nullify any and all unconstitutional acts by ANY branch of the federal Leviathan.

That said, neither the House nor the States have the spine or principle to faithfully uphold their oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution. (My guess is that neither the House nor the States even understand their authority and duties under the Constitution.)

And, of course, secession, thoroughly and willfully discredited by clueless statists and revisionists, is an entirely constitutional remedy to federal tyranny.

Our Founders provided efficacious remedies, but if we are unwilling to exercise our powers what good are those remedies? We have met the enemy and it us!

Sen. Mary Landrieu: ‘Getting rid of me would not be good for the country and it’s future’

No shameless self-promotion going on here, huh? The boorish arrogance of this nitwit. Who the hell does she think she is?

She's just scared about being in the unemployment lines which she and her Progressive pals have created for the rest of us.

Sorry, Mary, aka "Obamacare Queen", but you're going to have work for a living for a change--and soon.

She and her ilk make me vomit.

Harry Reid LIES about Ukraine aid, uses it to bash Koch Brothers AND to blame GOP for Crimea takeover

Stunning but terribly in character for this charlatan. This shameless and corrupt political hack is a disgrace. Like Obama and Pelosi, he'll definitely go DOWN in history.

Alaska Sues U.S. Over Its Rejection of Oil Exploration Plan

The fed's illegal control over Alaska lands which are not for the specific purpose of maintaining armories, fortifications and related military uses, is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates the Enclave Clause, plain and simple. What Alaska (and other States as well) should do is seize all lands illegally held by the feds. Will they do it? Nope. Why? Ignorance of the Constitution and a knee-jerk and vacuous belief that the federal government is supreme; that it trumps the Constitution and the States. Monstrous idiocy!

Until the States dust off and actually read the Constitution and assert their authority as sovereign States in this and myriad other issues, our downward spiral into darkness and oppression will continue unabated.

Ron Paul says Russia has the law on their side over Crimea…

Advice to Kremlin: permit a secession referendum in Crimea. If secession is lawfully approved by popular vote, THEN Crimea should subsequently call for an additional referendum to confederate/unite with Russia. This process would be in keeping with international law--and our own Constitution for that matter--and obliterate the idea that Russia is forcefully annexing Crimea. 

Political optics is everything. But, Russians are notorious blockheads of the first order, and they will opt for more thuggish tactics to acquire not only Crimea, but the Russian-dominated eastern portion of Ukraine as well. AND they will probably get away with it. 

As for Paul, on nearly every issue I completely agree with him--esp. in the area of economics. But, I’m afraid his foreign policy is puerile,, short-sighted and fanciful.

House Pushing Back Against Imperial Presidency With “Enforce the Law Act”

Great PR, but insane. Sure, it will draw the folks' attention to the tyranny, but that’s really it.

The remedy to executive overreach is a constitutional one: impeachment. And if enough Senate seats are captured by Republicans in November--which I doubt--then impeach, convict and remove him from office. (Note: to convict and remove a sitting chief executive requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate, a bridge too far for the most optimistic Republicans among us.) If this approach doesn't work out, then an all-out occupation of DC by patriots is needed until this putative president resigns or is forcibly removed.

Merely passing more laws which will again be ignored or vetoed is meaningless, unless, of course, it paves the way for effective removal.

Likely Success of Article Five Convention Efforts

For me, repealing the 17th Amendment and adopting a balanced budget amendment are justifiable reasons for a Convention of States.

However, this Art V Convention process can be uncomfortably lengthy during which time much federal mischief can be further perpetrated on the States and the People.

Thus, while the Art V process goes forward, I urge everyone to support States' 10th Amendment authority and duty to nullify any and all unconstitutional federal acts. The one-two punch of an Art V process AND the invocation of the 10^th Amendment would be dynamite!

Obviously, if the feds don't honor our current Constitution and Amendments, can we reasonably expect them to honor any new Amendments? That said, a concurrent Convention of States AND State nullification is THE most efficacious constitutional remedy before us. 

Supremes shoot down state's fight for gun rights

And the States permit this judicial mockery of the Constitution!

Montana's mistake was to refer the law to the federal courts in the first place.

Constitutionally, Montana may determine its own gun policy--NOT the feds.

As long as ignorant politicians defer to Leviathan on matters wholly within the State's scope of constitutional authority, federal invasiveness will not be stemmed.

JUST SAY NO, Montana! Nullify any court ruling which violates your State's sovereign rights under the Constitution. In other words, dust off the Constitution, read it, and follow it! Geez! This isn't rocket science, guys!

Ingraham: Justice Sotomayor Cares More About ‘Her Immigrant Family Background’ Than Constitution

"Illegal immigrant" is an oxymoron.

Per immigration law, one can't be illegal AND an immigrant. If you entered the country illegally, you are an illegal alien/undocumented alien/illegal entrant--NOT an illegal immigrant. An immigrant is, by definition, a legal entrant. Got it, Sonia?

Mixing and matching immigration terms to merely accommodate one's sensitivities is ignorant and irresponsible.

Oh, and by the way, Sonia, according to Webster's Dictionary, "illegal" is defined as illicit, unlawful, criminal. Do you find our dictionaries personally offensive too? Gee, maybe they should be outlawed, huh?

My God. Political correctness is stupefying this country. The extent to which some of us will go to obfuscate in order to advance our inane political agendas is disgusting and depraved. And Sonia, a jurist, should know better. (Tragically, she DOES know better, but that makes absolutely no difference at all. These days political agendas invariably trump faithfulness to the Rule of Law.)

Nullification returns: Mark Levin vs. the Tenth Amendment Center

Art III doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to violate the 10th Amendment. 

The court can opine as to the constitutionality of a particular act, but it has absolutely no constitutional authority to "rule" against or to militate against what, in its view, is an unconstitutional act. The Founders were very clear about this. Unfortunately, our political leaders and jurists have, over the years, hollowed out the Constitution to comport with their ideological game plans. It's up to us to restore constitutional order both at the federal and state levels.

Too often the States lack the constitutional principle and spine to defend their sovereign rights under the Constitution. Why? Sadly, they've been bought off by the giveaways from the federal Leviathan.

Actually, there is a "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution. To wit, Art. VI, para 2: " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

In short, the CONSTITUTION--not the Supreme Court or any other federal branch of government, or of the individual States--is supreme. This clause renders federal power supreme only insofar as the power exercised is within its clearly defined enumerated powers (Art 1 Sec 8).

Nationalists, Statists conveniently and deliberately misinterpret this clause in order to advance their authoritarian agendas. They always omit the words " which shall be made in pursuance thereof".

It's well past time we all became better acquainted with our Constitution and put these social engineers and radical authoritarians in their place.

Finally, Art 1 Sec 8 enumerated federal powers are, by design, very limited. Over the years, the feds--especially with Progressive encouragement--have expanded their powers well beyond constitutional limitations. As the 10th Amendment clearly provides, ANY power not specifically delegated by the States to the federal government, i.e. Art 1 Sec 8 powers, are reserved to the States and/or We the People. In short, the Feds have NO authority to regulate commerce WITHIN a State. And that includes marijuana production and sale of same with the confines of a State. Fed authority applies only to interstate commerce, this for the express purpose of rendering free and unencumbered trade between the States.

Mark Levin vs. the Tenth Amendment

We must remember that, this according to the Founders, the FINAL ARBITER of what is and what is not constitutional is We the People--not a gaggle of unelected, black-robed, divinely-inspired judicial oligarchs in DC.

We have strayed so very far from the Constitution it may require an upheavel to restore constitutional order, economic sanity and the rule of law. For any thinking American to believe we now live in a Republic is delusional.

Obfuscators and historical revisionists are hell bent to equate nullification (and secession) with slavery, this to delegitimize the inherent reserved rights of the States to nullify. These purveyors of propaganda and revisionist history conveniently forget the "Hartford Convention" which brought New England a hair's breath from seceding from the union. And, of course, the revisionists conveniently, deliberately and mendaciously characterize nullification as a "southern thing" when there were actually more acts of northern nullification than southern nullification. I hope folks get a chance to read "A Patriot's Call to Action" which debunks this revisionism and mythology with historical and legal facts.

Look to the 9th and 10th Amendments, and let our Founders be our guide--not the historical revisionists who would have us adopt authoritarianism as our form of government.

And while we’re at it, this: by definition, we've never had a "civil war". In 1861, we had the "War of Southern Independence" which some have dubbed the "War of Northern Aggression". Only if the Southern States were vying for political control of the central government in DC could that 4-yr slaughter be correctly described a "civil war". The Confederate States of America fought to be left alone in peace, independence and freedom--NOT to achieve ruling authority over the union.

Finally, and despite Levin’s errant assertion to the contrary, Madison did not debunk nullification. In fact, all Founders asserted that any unconstitutional acts emanating from the central government are null and void and unenforceable. Madison took exception not to nullification, but to South Carolina's assertion that a State's nullifying a particular federal act/law should be applicable in all States unless 3/4 of those States voted against that nullifying act. And, of course, that is in error.

I like Levin, but on the subject of nullification he is d-e-a-d wrong.

Allen West Says that ‘States will Nullify Obamacare’

Well, that would most certainly be THE solution to the Obamacare menace and a whole host of other outrageous federal violations of trust and of the Constitution, but I'll believe that when I see it, LTC West.

Being a clear-eyed, patriotic realist, I no longer trust government at ANY level any more.

It's well past time for We the People to assert our sovereign authority before we're so far down the rat hole we none of us can dig ourselves out!

Lead the fight, Sir! Then just maybe it will happen. But I won't hold my breath.

Pastoral Perfidy

In a recent 2-year study by George Barna, it was found that while nearly 90% of all American pastors believe that the Bible provides specific answers to the myriad issues challenging us today, only 10% say they will address those issues from the pulpit.

According to the study, the reason so many refuse to openly address these issues from the pulpit is to avoid "controversy", thus ensuring a "successful church".

Wow!

In the study, the vast majority of pastors said they determined "success" in five ways: attendance; donations; number of programs; number of staff; and, yes, square footage!

Inspiring and reassuring, huh?

My recent experience with my own Catholic parish in Rochester, NY seems to validate Barna's findings. Last week, I formally requested that the parish promote a strictly non-partisan "Voter Registration Sunday" in September. While exiting services, a manned table in the vestibule would be set up to assist interested parishioners to register to vote. Only a brief announcement from the pulpit and a small bulletin insert would inform parishioners of this service. However, in a follow-up meeting with the pastor the initiative was categorically rejected. Why? Such an event on parish grounds would be in violation of diocesan policy!  So much for civic responsibility, principle, courage of one's religious convictions and fearless adherence to Christian values and Biblical teachings. So much too for patriotism.

Shortly before this, I approached a very large Baptist church in the same area with the same request and the pastor immediately agreed.

Thus, while there are exceptions to the rule, there clearly appear to be more "CEO-type pastors" out there than committed God-fearing religious ones. Judging from the study's conclusions and my own experience, far too many church leaders seem to value their lofty position in the community, their creature comforts and "square footage" more than their religious calling to shepherd their flocks. Obviously, elitism comes in many forms, or so it appears.

Is it any wonder it's been such a tortuously uphill fight for patriots and Christians to restore constitutional order and those bedrock traditional American values that once made America so exceptional? If, for whatever reason, our churches betray their calling and, in turn, their flocks, on whom CAN we count? Note: our Founders warned that if we lose our Christian moorings and our traditional values, if we forsake our civic responsibilities, we will irretrievably lose our Republic.

Finally, in response to this study, a Reverend Chuck Baldwin is quoted as saying that "it is time for Christians to acknowledge that these ministers are not pastors: they are CEOs. They are not Bible teachers: they are performers. They are not shepherds: they are hirelings. It is also time for Christians to be  honest with themselves: do they want a pastor who desires to be faithful to the Scriptures, or do they want a pastor who is simply trying to be "successful".

Yet again, the cause for the corruption of our leaders, both pastoral and secular alike, is staring boldly back at us from the mirror before us. By our silence and compliance, we alone are the reason for our country's disintegration.

"...activities intended to encourage people to participate in the election process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a nonpartisan manner." Internal Revenue Service

"God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as part of their duty to God...God will bless or curse this nation according to the course Christians take in politics." Charles Finney, "Lectures on Revival of Religion" (1835)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke