The TRUMP PHENOM: How I See It

Though he certainly elicits more angst, from both the left and the right, than do other candidates, I venture to say that once the catharsis of legitimate visceral anger among Republican and Conservative Americans is played out, that Mr. Trump's star will fade. To most Americans, I just don't think he's viewed as "presidential". That's not to say that what he's now saying and doing--i.e. roiling the pot--is of no use; it's just that after awhile the pot's contents--that being the anti-Establishment angst among many Americans--will simply boil away.

My real concern is not whether or not Trump gets the nomination, which I don't believe he will, it is whether or not he can effectively debate a terribly flawed, but very slick, choreographed, double-talking Hillary, a quintessentially shameless, wily politician who also happens to be considerably more articulate than Mr. Trump.  In truth, I have some very serious doubts about Trump's ability to successfully handle such a debate and to convince a majority of voters that while he is rough-hewned he is also sufficiently presidential.

At this point, and unless his demeanor/deportment/substance--not necessarily his message--is cleaned up, clarified, I fear a Trump nomination could doom conservative hopes to capture the White House. And if we fail in that regard, I see serious tumult ahead--possibly even the country's disunion. Four more years of heavy-handed, destructive Progressivism would simply be too much for most patriotic Americans to tolerate.

The Trump Phenom is not difficult to explain or understand; however, it's outcome and effects, whether deleterious or constructive, are still very much unknown.

Very importantly, I'm not at all sure that I can trust that Mr. Trump will not run as a third party candidate if his support erodes. His ambiguous messaging on this score is very troubling.

My hope is that a real conservative, constitution-first patriot is elected, and to achieve that end I will do all I can. Conservatism's failure this time around will, I believe, finish us as a union. And if the break-up of this once venerable union is what it takes to restore constitutional order in at least a portion of that union, then I have no reservations about embracing such an outcome. I just hope such a break-up can be avoided, but NOT at the risk of permitting the further erosion of our founding principles and liberties. Unity at any price is folly.

So, a lot hangs in the balance with this upcoming election, for its outcome could well determine our fate as a unified people and country. Exaggerated concern? Not this time...

Some of My Recent Online OPINIONATING...

The beginning of secession? Texas wants to nullify all federal gun laws

Trust me. The secession movement is well underway in Texas. And thank God for that.

As for this "anti-commandeering" act which renders unlawful any State functionary to assist the federal gov't in its enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws, it's a step in the right direction, and other States are already seriously considering a similar move.

The coup de grace would be when a State actually nullifies a federal action, the difference being that nullification would criminalize enforcement by either federal or State offices/officers--more meaningful than simply anti-commandeering which merely punishes State officers.

Glad to see this resistance to federal usurpations.

 Let's just pray Texas doesn't shortsightedly submit itself to federal court rulings which might well overturn these perfectly legal State actions, something weak-kneed States have been foolishly prone to do on a whole host of constitutional issues. Let the 10th Amendment play out!!!!!

Senate GOP opens door to weakening the filibuster

Eliminating Democrat filibusters is the ONLY solution to this interminable bottleneck in the Senate.

In present circumstances--unlike the period during which the Democrats so shamelessly eliminated the filibuster while a Democrat prez (Obama) occupied the White House--if the GOP eliminates the filibuster, a Democrat president (Obama) can still nix any legislation Democrats in the Senate do not support; thus, Obama would still act as a firewall against GOP legislation. That's more than the Democrats have ever offered the GOP when the Dems were in charge in both the Senate and the White House.

McConnell, kill the filibuster and permit Comrade Obama to do the Senate Democrats' bidding by his veto! Sounds perfectly sensible, legitimate and orderly to me.

"Regular Order" should not be an end unto itself; protecting the American people and the Constitution should trump so-called "regular order".

Exclusive — Jeff Sessions: Time To Hit Brakes On ‘Radical’ Pace Of Immigration

It's about corporate America reducing wages and increasing profits AND the Democratic Party's growing the number of future Democratic voters = one-party socialist-corporate rule.

Humanitarianism has precious little to do with immigration policy these days. We're so stupid, suicidal it's laughable--if it weren't so frightening, that is. And this comment by a man who has been in the front line of resettling refugees for most of his adult life.

The self-serving beast which immigration and refugee resettlement have become today is sickening.

This Is the Fastest Growing Immigrant Community in America

The appalling stupidity of permitting an influx of aliens whose values and belief systems are incompatible with our way of life, our traditional values and philosophy of government is mind-boggling and nothing short of suicidal. It's like reading a horror story and already knowing how it will all turn out. Commonsense has been abandoned.

Carly Fiorina Showing Her True Colors With What She Just Said About Ben Carson’s Muslim Comments

I think Carson's detractors are missing the point entirely--either deliberately (for political or politically correct reasons) or inadvertently.

Carson doesn't say there should be a religious litmus test to become prez; that would violate Art VI of the Constitution. But, because to most Muslims sharia law trumps constitutional law, he says HE wouldn't vote for a Muslim to fill that position. Commonsense and a well-honed desire for survival dictates that I wouldn't either.

If we continue to placate, appease and humor Islamism, we invite our own destruction. No thanks!

Republican predicts he won’t be along with pope boycott

I applaud Rep. Gosar's principled stance.

A practicing Catholic myself, I am deeply troubled by what appear to be some clearly neo-Marxist/liberation theological/globalist views of this Pope. Though the Pope's apologists continue to loyally sanitize and spin his words on economics, global government and man-made global warming, it is clear to many Catholics where this Pope's foundational base lies.

I am reassured by the firm belief that, as in the past, the Catholic Church will survive this Pope as well. Oh, how I miss his predecessors.

Texas Nationalists Reportedly Try to Get Secession Question Onto GOP Primary Ballot

Per the 10th Amendment, Secession is a time-honored, reserved constitutional right of the States.

We've had two wars of secession: the Revolutionary War and the deliberately miss-named "Civil War", or, more correctly, the "War Between the States" or the "War of Southern Secession".

It matters not a whit what the prejudicial, radically revisionist 1869 court ruling said about a State's right to secede; no simple-minded, agenda-driven court ruling can overrule this fundamental right of the States.

The Founders would, to a man, support a State's authority to secede from the union it helped create.
Since the North's costly victory in 1865, successive generations of Americans have been brainwashed into believing that secession is somehow unlawful and unconstitutional. Glad to see that some Americans have actually studied our founding principles.

Personally, and given the tyrannical direction of this union of States, I wish the secession movement in Texas--and elsewhere--enormous success. Secession sure beats bloody revolution. And let's face it: we need somewhere to run if we want to escape oppression and restore constitutional order.
Go, Texas Nationalist Movement!!!!

After Banning Confederate Flags, Amazon Decided to Sell This Shocking Item

Political correctness in any form is both S-I-C-K and subversive of our way of life.

The black T-shirt is tasteless and offensive; but, not being a wild-eyed, intolerant Progressive without a life I don't demand that Amazon pull that product from its lineup. Let stupid people buy stupid things. T-shirts don't kill people; people kill people. Those who are offended, boycott Amazon. It's that simple.

That said, in the interest of commonsense and fair-and-balanced, the Confederate line of products should be fully restored by Amazon. IF not, they should be boycotted.

Why are people and companies so stupid? And I thought 3 yr olds were a handful. Duh.

Muslim Immigration and How to Handle It

We are in the West are so horribly stupid. History teaches that the source of Muslim problems is Islam itself. Why import those who have no interest in acculturating? Compel Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Arab states to set up "refugee safe zones" where these "Muslim refugees" can live a decent life until they can safely return to their homelands. The air-conditioned tent city in Saudi Arabia intended to accommodate hundreds of thousands of Haj participants is a perfect "safe zone" where all refugee basic needs can be provided until those refugees are able to safely return to their countries of origin.

But, this makes too much sense, so it can't possibly work. Dumb Dumb Dumb.

Muslim ‘Refugees’ and Terrorism in America

IF I thought Obama was a humanitarian, I'd be able to somewhat excuse this insanity. But, Obama is NOT a humanitarian. He's a notoriously and shamelessly unprincipled, self-serving Marxist. So, what prompts his decision to permit 10,000--maybe more--questionable Muslim refugees to resettle in American communities? That's rhetorical, of course. I think we know his insidious intentions. There can be no other reason.

What Both Sides Get Right And Wrong About Kim Davis

No matter how you cut it, the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly underscore that all powers/authority not granted to the feds or specifically prohibited to the States are vested solely in the States. Same-sex marriage is not an inherent right or a statutory right and is not protected by the 14th's equal protection clause; by original design, defining marriage falls within the exclusive authority of the States. It's really that straightforward. In any event, the Supreme Court has absolutely no constitutional sway in such a matter. None.

For the federal gov't to define marriage, the Constitution would need to be amended so that this authority is included in Art I Sec 8 of the Constitution. With Obergefell, the constitutional options left open to the States/People are civil disobedience, state nullification or pressing for a reversal of the Obergefell "ruling".

The Supreme Court is empowered to review legislation and to opine if that legislation fully comports with the clear meaning of the Constitution. In so doing, the court is enjoined to exercise legal JUDGEMENT--not personal WILL, as this court clearly did in the Obergefell "ruling".

In 1911, the Court said, "Among the powers of the state not surrendered--which powers therefore remain with the state--is the power to so regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its jurisdiction as to guard the public morals, the public safety, and the public health, as well as to promote the public convenience and the common good." Subsequent and unconstitutional federalization of State powers/responsibilities/rights has been destructive of our republican fabric.

Per Chief Justice Roberts, "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to [the court]. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, NOT what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise 'neither force nor will but merely judgement. The truth is that today's decision rests on nothing more than the majority's own conviction that same-sex couple should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that 'it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right. Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner. 2. Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. 3. The majority's decision is an act of WILL, not legal JUDGEMENT. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent.The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with 'the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.' " He went on to warn that this errant/gratuitous ruling will inevitably lead to the lawful efficacy of plural unions since such unions, unlike same-sex unions, have deep roots in some cultures. Thus, the doctrine of "equal protection" is inapplicable since same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right. The court clearly overreached its constitutional authority by its inovativeness vs faithfulness to the Constitution..

The problem for me is that I see no evidence that the "right" of marriage, gay, polygamous, heterosexual, is defined either positively or negatively as a specific right in the Constitution. For the Founders,this as alluded to by Hamilton in Federalist #78, the well-established mountain of cultural tradition and biblical foundational precepts rendered the need to codify the institution of traditional marriage unnecessary. The right was a cultural given. Thus, since there is not an expressed right to marriage of any kind in the Constitution, in Obergefell the justices relied on personal will to grant/legalize, out of whole cloth, the right to gay marriage. Also, inherent rights as borne out by firmly establish cultural traditions/norms don't require reliance on "equal protection" safeguards since such rights are inherent. Too, the Court may not GRANT rights not expressed. Read #78 and see if you derive the same understanding.

Many believed that the republic, as originally designed, wouldn't last beyond the first quarter of the 19th century. And to the extent that errant case law has all but nullified the original Constitution, they were right. Constitutional Supremacy long ago gave way to Judicial Supremacy, and that has pretty much sealed our sorry fate as a constitutional republic. That said, we must persevere and restore constitutional order as best we can. The alternative is too dark to contemplate.

Final Note: The Framers and the State Declarations of Understanding issued by the ratifying States preceded Marbury v Madison. Let the erudition and meaning of the former be our guide going forward. Subsequent case law is a poor measure of original intent and understanding.

Obama Orders That America Take In 70,000 Islamic “Refugees,” But Now John Kerry Says That The Number Will Be Up To 100,000 Muslims. Be Prepared For ISIS Massacres To Happen In The US Soon

The Gulf States should be strong-armed to take in these refugees--NOT Europe or the United States!!! Sadly, of course, the U.S. no longer has the credibility or moral force to apply such leverage.

For me, the influx of in adequately vetted Islamic "refugees" is but a Trojan Horse intended to undermine and weaken the West. I'm an 'ole refugee worker and worked with refugees here and abroad for over 20 yrs, but I am deeply alarmed by this "invasion".

 Barry Obama's predictable inclination to open the floodgates to potential Islamists is nothing short of criminal.

Another option to is to set up a well-funded, well-guarded refugee resettlement containment area in Syria where these so-called "refugees" can live until conditions permit them to return to their homes. From the reports I've read, so many of these people are arrogant, demanding, insulting and simply unappreciative. And most would rather be in Syria than be resettled elsewhere.

I've dealt with such refugees in the past, and they are monstrously difficult to handle and seldom, if ever, assimilate. This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

Obama's feckless foreign policy in the ME bears SOLE responsibility for this disaster, but, sadly, our allies in the ME won't help out because they don't trust--nor respect--the bozo in the White House. If ever there is a time for IMPEACHMENT of this lawless ideologue, it is NOW!!! Il Duce Obama must be stopped!

What Both Sides Get Right And Wrong About Kim Davis

The very concept of amendments per Art V of the Constitution illustrates the obvious: that man is imperfect and that his creations are necessarily subject to thoughtful reconsideration and either subsequent clarification and/or alteration. As well done as the Constitution is, it required some re-working and fine-tuning as witnessed by the 27 amendments which followed ratification. The key here is that the Constitution cannot and should not be whimsically misinterpreted out of existence. It should only be modified by a formal amendment process.

Historically, the 14th was a follow-on to the 13th, this to better ensure that freed slaves were able to exercise their rights as citizens of the US and the States within which they resided. For context, read the 14th framers' words and some relevant historical accounts of that period. The meaning and intent are crystal clear.

The citizens in each state, in convention, ratified the US Constitution which it's representatives created on their behalf in 1787; thus, by original design, the people in each State are the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional. And the People and their immediate fiduciary agents, that being their States, are, therefore, duty-bound to ensure that their federal representatives are faithful to the Constitution which the People, thru their representatives, created. ALL power emanates from the People. Without that, there is unbridled tyranny.

The Constitution has carefully and clearly restricted the powers of the federal government, inclusive of all its three branches, and any power not specifically delegated by the States to the federal government or prohibited to the States in the Constitution rest solely with the States. This is not rocket science. Honest. If it were, I wouldn't understand it either.

Lesson 1: to understand original meaning and intent of this and all other provisions of the Constitution, you must take the time to read what the framers of those provisions intended. The 14th, like the 13th, was specifically aimed at freed slaves. Not my opinion, just the truth.

Huckabee on Court Clerk: 'The Only Law She's Following Is Kentucky Law'

The role of the courts is not to "let the states do whatever they want", nor is it to arrogate undelegated powers unto themselves or to the other branches of the federal government. Read Art 1 Sec 8, Art 3, and then the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Plain as day what the framers had in mind.

The legal scope of the court is, per Art 3, to review legislation to determine if, in the opinion of the court, that legislation fully comports with the Constitution--not to interpret or re-interpret the clear meaning of the Constitution, and most certainly NOT to make law.

The authority of the Supreme Court is deliberately narrow in scope, and that was the intention of the framers. Read it for yourself. Point in fact: each branch of the federal government, not to mention the governments of the several States, are empowered to opine on the issue of constitutionality. This was never, ever left to the Supreme Court alone. Checks and balances, separation of powers = Republic.

We have strayed so very far from the Constitution that to believe we actually live in a constitutional republic today is utterly delusional. That may elate many dissemblers and transformationists on the left, but for us lonely constitutionalists with families to protect, it is painfully sobering.

The 14th was narrowly intended to ban the unequal treatment of freed slaves. Nothing more nor less.
And, please, carefully note that the Constitution prohibits the federal government, a creation of the States, from exercising any authority not specifically granted to it. Per the Supremacy Clause neither States nor the Federal Government may usurp each other's authority. Federal powers are restricted to Art 1 Sec 8. Any and all other powers, whether expressed, implied or unstated, rest with the States. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land--not the feds and not the States.

The real point here is that SCOTUS cannot make law; it can only opine as to what they understand the original meaning and intent of the Constitution to be--great challenge they continue to dodge. They are demonstrably fallible human jurists. Nothing more. Why so many of us treat them as omniscient deities is mind-numbing and self-destructive. Doing so certainly does not reflect their purpose as defined by our Founders. They've become a law unto themselves, and by our routine compliance we are digging our republic's grave.

Our allowing these 9 judicial oligarchs such unbridled authority is suicidal.

The court is empowered to render an opinion. It is not enforceable law. Or at least it's not supposed to be. We permit this judicial tyranny at our own peril.

Like personal opinions, Court precedent doesn't trump the Constitution. If that were the case, the Constitution would be an irrelevancy, a soiled piece of worthless paper, a relic. Come to think of it, it has become irrelevant. And therein lies our sorry fate.

There are constitutional precedents and unconstitutional precedents. And the fallibility and constitutional faithlessness of jurists have been on full display for decades. Court "rulings" are not law! They are opinions. Whether you like it or not, defining marriage IS a residual constitutional power of the States alone--not of the federal government.

Loving v Virginia banned the prohibition of interracial marriages. It did NOT--and could not--provide that the institution of marriage is/was a fundamental constitutional "right". Note: Case law "rulings" are not law if in violation of the Constitution. No fundamental right to marriage is stated or implied.

No amendment, no matter how it is twisted and misinterpreted, can nullify another stand-alone Amendment. In short, the 14th CANNOT abridge the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution until those amendments are constitutionally amended or repealed via a formal amendment process. Period. These particular amendments were intended to safeguard the powers of the States and nothing more. Among those powers are, quite literally, thousands of implied powers specifically denied, or otherwise not delegated, to the federal government--defining marriage as an institution being one of those countless powers.

Also, if you do a modicum of research on the 14th, you will find that it has been terribly--criminally--and unconstitutionally misinterpreted over the years merely to advance political/ideological agendas. ALWAYS diligently look to original meaning and intent, not to the self-serving words of
politicians and advocates of all manner of causes.

James Madison (Federalist #45): "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are FEW and DEFINED (See Art 1, Sec 8 enumerated fed powers). Those which are to remain in the State governments are NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE". Thus, defining marriage, among countless other unenumerated State powers, is a function of the State alone--NOT of the
federal government. (The "Supreme Court" got Dred Scott wrong--among so many other cases--and, true to form, it got this ruling wrong as well. Remedy: ignore or nullify the ruling.)

And in case you want to throw the Supremacy Clause (Art VI Para 2) at me, this is what it clearly says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United StatesWHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall bebound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding." As can be readily seen, the Founders rendered federal power very narrowly here, effectively limiting it to those powers specifically granted to it by the States in Art 1, Sec 8. Thus, since State and Federal powers are clearly defined in the Constitution, States may not usurp federal powers and the federal government may not usurp State powers. Thus, they are each supreme within their respective spheres of authority. And, again, federal authority is severely
restricted to Art 1 Sec 8 ENUMERATED powers, whereas the powers vested
in the States are "numerous and indefinite"--limited only by the citizens of the States.

By the way, the 9th Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment was intended to protect rights not specifically enumerated as federal powers. The 10th Amendment merely underscored that all matters over which the federal government was not specifically granted authority rested with the States and the People. Again, the 9th does NOT grant marriage as a constitutional right.

Thus, defining marriage is one of the countless powers reserved to the States.

While you or I can certainly opine, that doesn't make our opinions constitute enforceable law. SCOTUS cannot limit State authority. Only the Constitution, as written, can do that. The court's job, this per Art 3, is to review laws and to weigh whether or not, in the court's opinion, those laws comport with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution. They may only opine; they cannot "rule" nor enforce. And if their opinion is at odds with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution, it is null and void and of no effect.

No amendment, no matter how it is twisted and misinterpreted, can nullify another stand-alone Amendment. In short, the 14th CANNOT abridge the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution until those amendments are constitutionally altered via a formal amendment process. Period.

Also, if you do a modicum of research on the 14th, you will find that it has been terribly--almost criminally--and unconstitutionally misinterpreted over the years merely to advance political/ideological agendas. ALWAYS diligently look to original meaning and intent, not to the self-serving words of politicians and advocates of all manner of causes.

James Madison (Federalist #45): "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are FEW and DEFINED (See Art 1, Sec 8 enumerated fed powers). Those which are to remain in the State governments are NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE". Thus, defining marriage, among countless other unenumerated powers, is a function of the State alone--NOT of the federal government. The "Supreme Court" got Dred Scott wrong--among so many other cases--and, true to form, it got this ruling wrong as well. Remedy: ignore or nullify the ruling.

And in case you want to throw the Supremacy Clause (Art Vi Para 2) at me, this is what it clearly says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, 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." As can be readily seen, the Founders rendered federal power very narrowly here, effectively limiting it to those powers granted to it by the States in Art 1, Sec 8. Thus, since State and Federal powers are clearly defined in the Constitution, States may not usurp federal powers and the federal government may not usurp State powers. Thus, they are each supreme within their respective spheres of authority. And, again, federal authority is severely restricted to Art 1 Sec 8.

Hillary: 'Party of Lincoln has become the party of Trump'

Understanding the "real Lincoln", I'd say the "party of Trump" would be a significant improvement.
Now, let's get back to the Hillary emails and scuttle her obvious attempts to distract.

Donald Trump wants to deport 11 million migrants: is that even possible?

Easiest way to handle the 11 million+ is to 1) secure the "southern sieve", aka southern border, 2) grant work authorization/legal residence to "qualified" illegals (no criminality, successfully complete a closely monitored English language trng course, pay a substantial fine and any back taxes), 3) disallow any of these folks from ever becoming US Citizens UNLESS they leave the country and return in a lawful manner. This applies to visa over-stayers who comprise about 40% of all illegal aliens in the country, 4) establish a full-proof system for tracking ALL illegals, both gate-crashers and visa over-stayers, and deport them when there is no record of their having departed the country when required, 5) any illegal re-entry should result in imprisonment for no less than 5 years. A second illegal re-entry draws a 15 yr prison term followed by permanent bar from re-entry, 6) a stringently enforced E-Verify/I-9 procedure to ensure employer compliance with the law.
No need to deport them en masse

GOP: Clinton must turn over server

It's so flaming obvious that Hillary has deleted or otherwise hidden sensitive emails of interest to the American public. Betcha' she gets away with it too. They're all self-serving elitist thugs !!!! The law applies to the unwashed masses, not the political elite.

Despite Court Order, Obama Admin Approves 100,000 Expanded DACA Applications | Homeland Security | US

And the lawlessness continues with utter impunity. Obama tastes unchecked executive power, and he thrives in it. Thanks, GOP, for your faithlessness and spinelessness. You are all complicit in our republic's demise.

Is John Roberts ready to take down ObamaCare?

Hey, Roberts, don't worry so much about the public's perception of whether you lean liberal or conservative. Be focused like a laser on original meaning and intent. Don't "interpret" or divine a meaning not clearly expressed. The Constitution is what it says, and the Obamacare debacle is as written. Don't forget your oath of office. Nothing else should matter. Right now, I trust your judiciousness and wisdom as much as trust Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Zilch.

House chaos leaves GOP senators fuming

McConnell and McCain, if you're unwilling to fight for the Constitution, you are unfit for leadership, no less than is the Thug-in-Chief currently squatting in the White House.

The battle isn't about "going along to get along", it is for the very survival of what little remains of this tattered republic. Wake the F*#@* up, you jerks!!!

FCC: You Won’t Know What’s In Net Neutrality Until We Force It Upon You

IF Rep. Clyburn breaks with his fellow FCC Democrats, then, perhaps, this net neutrality debacle can be prevented.

But, what really deeply and painfully disturbs me is the fact that 5 little unelected bureaucratic oligarchs can have the power to unilaterally regulate the internet without congressional approval.
Congress should defund FCC and Wheeler should be held in contempt--and impeached/removed.

McConnell Plans to End DHS Funding Impasse by Holding Separate Vote on Immigration Amend

And the GOP caves yet again! So reassuring to know we have representatives in DC who are committed to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution. One more nail in our Constitution's coffin. 

Senate Republicans eye new strategy in immigration fight

The solution is painfully obvious: abandon the fillibuster rule until a more trustworthy chief executive is sworn in 2017.

Which is more important to the nation: the GOPs restoring regular order in the Senate and permitting a Progressive fillibuster of the DHS bill OR the GOPs upholding the Rule of Law and faithfully defending the Constitution?

For a patriot, the choice is obvious. It's not rocket science, folks.

If the GOP permits the DHS bill to pass, inclusive of the amnesty piece, the GOP is complicit in undermining Judge Hanen's ruling and the Constitution of the United States.

Oh, and by the way, DHS will NOT be shut down even with Comrade Obama's veto. 80% of DHS personnel have been deemed essential. They will show up for work.

Clarence Thomas: 'Another Example of This Court’s Increasingly Cavalier Attitude Toward the States

Many, both on the left and right, don't understand the meaning of the Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment as originally conceived by the Framers and understood by the ratifying States. Please carefully read both.

I draw your attention to the words "which shall be made in Pursuance of thereof" in the Supremacy Clause. In other words, if a power is not EXPRESSLY granted to the federal gov't in the Constitution, then that power, whether implicit or expressed, is vested in the States, unless that particular power is expressly prohibited to the States.

The scope of Supreme Court authority is also severely and clearly limited in Art III to reviewing defined areas--but NOT enforcing its will on States or superseding State constitutional authority.

Again, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land--not the federal judiciary! When in doubt as to the powers of the central gov't and the States, ALWAYS refer to the Constitution itself. Do NOT rely legal misinterpretations/opinions.

No amount of revisionist rulings/opinions by a gaggle of unelected, black-robed judicial oligarchs can alter the fact that the CONSTITUTION, as written, is the Supreme Law of the Land--NOT the federal government or of any of its usurping branches. The Constitution severely limits federal authority, while it vests enormous powers in the States. And that is what the Founders intended.
Owing to the  revisionism attending this matter over the years plus the ignorance of We the People, we've lost our constitutional republic. It's almost irrelevant to any longer discuss it unless, of course, one is determined to restore constitutional order and original intent.

Marriage--vs civil union-- is NOT a legal relationship, only insofar as it may generate income for the gov't by gov'ts insinuating itself into  marriage. Marriage is more a spiritual, religious act, quite apart from a legal act. To generate income, gov't has involved itself in marriage for the express purpose of collections

SUPREMACY CLAUSE TERRIBLY MISINTERPRETED

In the Supremacy Clause, please note the words "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof", meaning, of course, that Federal law trumps State Law when the law or power in question is specifically delegated BY THE CONSTITUTION--not by errant and revisionist court opinions/rulings--to the federal government. Those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government reside with the States. Couldn't be more unambiguous no matter how diligently one may tease the clear meaning.

To wit, per Madison in Federalist #45: " The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are FEW AND DEFINED. Those which remain in the State governments are NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE." He was referring explicitly to Art I Sec 8.

To underscore this understanding as to the limitations on federal authority, the States compelled adoption of the 10th Amendment: "The powers NOT DELEGATED by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." Crystal, Crystal clear. Very difficult to deliberately or inadvertently misinterpret the meaning of the 10th.

In short, federal powers are limited to Art I Sec 8 and Art 1 Sec 10. All other powers, explicit or implied, are reserved to the States.

From a constitutional legal standpoint, it matters not at all that a gaggle of unelected, black-robed, unaccountable judicial oligarchs have come to view themselves as the final arbiters of what is or what is not constitutional at every level of jurisprudence in these united States. Art III permits the Supreme Court to review laws, but Art III does not grant the Court permission to issue "rulings" or to enforce their rulings/opinions. Art III clearly and carefully limits the scope of the Court's authority.

As Founder Archibald Maclaine and others asserted in 1788, "It is plain a thing as possibly can be, that Congress can have no power but what we expressly give them." And then, there was Mr. Pinckney of SC who, in 1788, noted "No powers could be executed or assumed by the federal government, but such as were expressly delegated [by the States]." And, of course, there was Jefferson who asserted that "To consider the Judges of the Supreme Court as the ultimate Arbiters of a Constitutional question would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. I see no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves." And, as Justice Chase noted in 1789, "The several State Legislatures RETAIN all the powers of LEGISLATION, delegated to them by the State Constitution, which are not EXPRESSLY taken away by the Constitution of the United States." Even Hamilton, a big gov't advocate, asserted that "NO legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. Whatever is not EXPRESSLY given to the federal head, is reserved to the members."

I could go on, but these guys knew what they were crafting and the States understood what they were ratifying, that being a severely limited central government and more powerful State governments. Of course, you wouldn't know that today. The Court, like all other branches of the federal government, have usurped authorities never, ever envisioned or sanctioned directly or indirectly by the Founders or the Supreme Law of the Land. And We the People, by our ignorance and submissive silence, have permitted it.

The US Constitution--NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--is the Supreme Law of the Land. When either the State or the Federal Government usurps powers not constitutionally granted to or otherwise vested in them, the Supreme Law of the Land is thus violated.

Thanks to decades of violations, we are no longer a constitutional republic. And we never will be again until the People resist this insidious transformation and restore constitutional order.

While it wasn't always like this, most lawyers and judges are trained to win cases and to advance their agendas, not to defend the Constitution. Faithfulness to and familiarity with the Constitution are, at best, afterthoughts to many of these fellows.

Like motorcycle helmets, marijuana and infinite array of other matters not expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the States, gay marriage and, as said, a whole host of other matters fall within the constitutional authority of the States. We'd best understand this, or we lose what precious little remains of our tattered Constitutional Republic.

ET TU, NAPOLITANO?  

And only today on FOX I heard Judge Napolitano assert that whenever there is a judicial clash between State and Federal authority on a particuLAr issue, in this case gay marriage, that the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal authority prevails. WHAT???????????????

Napolitano is clearly a product of a liberal law school education.

The Supremacy Clause grants supremacy to the US CONSTITUTION alone--not to either the State or Federal authorities. In short, unless the federal government is specifically granted a particular power by the Constitution, the federal government MUST defer to State authority in the matter, this per the US Constitution (10th Amendment), aka the Supreme Law of the Land.

Napolitano's a good man, but on this fundamental point he is painfully and acutely at odds with the Founders and the Constitution they crafted and ratified. His grotesque misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause is as much a threat to constitutional order as is Liberalism and Progressivism.

Judge Roy Moore: 'The law is very clear'

Any imperious "ruling" by the Supreme Court which violates State sovereignty per the 10th Amendment and, therefore, the Constitution of the US, the latter being THE supreme law of the land, is null and void and should be summarily ignored by Alabama and every other State. Alabama should NOT submit to judicial overreach. Submitting is enabling federal tyranny. Without question, gay marriage, like myriad other issues/areas falls squarely within the constitutional powers of the States--NOT NOT NOT the federal government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesse Ventura mocks Chris Kyle’s hero status: ‘Nazis have heroes’ too

I've given up trying to figure this guy out. He's just plain mentally ill. Someone to be totally ignored--except if you're a mental health caregiver.

Insider Warns of Imminent Attack: ISIS Planning Something Much Bigger Than 9/11

Perhaps such an awful attack on the homeland will finally awaken the millions of mindless or otherwise soporific American robots to the threat posed by ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and their apologist in the White House.  But, don't count on it. The ignorance in this country is dangerously pervasive and foundational.

Obama Declares War on Alaska: Designating 12+ Million ANWR Acres Off-Limits “Wilderness”

Am getting mighty sick of States whining about lawless federal seizures of their real estate. Mighty sick!

Stop the hand-wringing, Alaska, and IGNORE/NULLIFY the royal White House edict!!!!!!!!

Regarding federal control of State land, do you want to know your authority as a sovereign State? For starters, check out the post entitled "Federal Imperialism vs State Sovereignty" on Opinerlog.blogspot,com.

The solution to this brazen federal overreach is as plain as the snow on your face! Stop roiling, whining, grovelling. JUST SAY NO BLOODY WAY !!!!!!! Am just so sick of States unwilling to stand up for themselves and their citizens!!!!! SICK!