California Libs Do It Again

The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of California is the poster-child for Progressive insanity. In addition to other weird and self-destructive laws it has recently passed (read article) is SB1322 which prohibits the arrest of children under 18 for solicitation or acts of prostitution. Pimps and pedophiles are in a state of euphoria, I'm sure. As usual, Progressive "good intentions" will result in irreparable harm to the innocent. This underscores my heartfelt hope that the Calexit secessionist movement is wildly successful. Removing this cancer from the rest of the country would be a boon to civilization. La La Land, an oasis of ignorance, repressive intolerance and cognitive dissonance, is flourishing still. PLEASE, California, do us all a favor and LEAVE the union!!!! Frankly, you're an embarrassment.

California Democrats legalize child prostitution

Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right. SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to…

WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM

States Again Whine About Illegal Federal Land Grab, But Do Little Else to Restore State Sovereignty

Every time this issue comes up, the media, both left and right, totally ignore the fact that, from a Constitutional standpoint, such federal land grabs are entirely lawless. (I devoted an entire chaper in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", to this very issue.)

Everyone, please read the Enclave Clause, and if you really want to better understand how far the feds have strayed from the Constitution in this regard, read the history of the Northwest Ordinance. It's not rocket science and it makes crystal clear what our Founders' intent was with respect to federal control of State territories.

Of course, and as is too often the case, lawless judicial revisionism has corrupted original meaning and intent, but the point is this: the States are completely within their authority to reclaim all lands not conforming to the Enclave Clause. PERIOD. (The Antiquities Act of 1906 which significantly limits the extent of such fed land grabs notwithstanding, the ENCLAVE CLAUSE is what the States should be looking at and acting upon.) Obama has not only violated the Enclave Clause, but the Antiquities Act as well. A real sweetheart.

It is wearying and depressing that not only the media, but also our political representatives, both State and Federal, are so utterly clueless about the brazen lawlessness of such federal seizures of sovereign State territories when done without a State's legislative consent and when the land seized does not comport with Enclave Clause parameters.

The spinelessness of the States and the ignorance of our "leaders" continue to be painfully outrageous. No wonder our so-called republic is in such a mess. Thus, I lay the blame for this federal overreach not on Obama (one should reasonably expect him to be brazenly lawless) but on the wimpy, heavily bribed and submissive States who routinely permit such tyranny. Shame!

Obama names Utah, Nevada monuments despite GOP opposition

President Barack Obama designated two national monuments Wednesday at sites in Utah and Nevada that have become key flashpoints over use of public land in the…

WASHINGTONPOST.COM

Kerry, Please Don't Let the Door Hit You On the Way Out. (Oh! And Good Riddance!)

Though resisting nodding off and realizing that his speech was likely nothing more than a desperate rhetorical attempt to recover credibility, I carefully listened to Kerry's regurgitation of age-old "principles of peace" required to settle the lingering dispute between Israel and Palestine. And, guess what?Absolutely no new ground was broken & no new break-through solutions were advanced which would result in a resolution of that nettlesome conflict .

My initial reaction was "Why now, Kerry, just three weeks before leaving office?" To me, it was a desperate, albeit entirely useless, shamelessly self-serving and transparent, attempt to recoup some semblance of credibility in the midst of the wreakage created by 8 years of a remarkably failed Obama foreign policy.

Aside from denying playing any part in drafting the UN resolution prohibiting the expansion of Israeli settlements (sure), and his assertion that "friendship requires mutual respect" and "honesty" (hmmm), and despite the ghastly Iran deal, an existential threat to Israel's very survival, his hollow pleas of innocence and good intentions were utterly unconvincing.

And regarding that elusive and long sought-after 2-State solution, what he didn't seem to appreciate is that, from the outset, the Palestinians have 1) refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, clearly a negotiating non-starter, and 2) Israel's unilaterally surrendering land in return for peace has NEVER WORKED. In fact, such well-intentioned retreats have led to more aggression from the Palestinians, Israel's ceding Gaza being the clearest illustration of that.

Another reality few seem to understand is that Palestine itself is divided, one decidedly more secular (West Bank) and one terrorist (Gaza). Not even these entities agree with one another. So, is it a 2-State solution or a 3-State solution we should be pursuing?

The sad truth is that peace between Palestinians and Israelis is most likely impossible. AGE-OLD hatreds and distrust are now foundational. Yes, we can continue trying to "bring them together" and to reduce conflicts and casualties, but, currently and for the foreseeable future, peace is but a pipe dream, and we need to come to grips with that unpleasant reality.

And though Obama's foreign policy has been feckless and short-sighted it has created an opportunity for Obama's successor, that being a serious re-examination of America's relationship with and support of the U.N. And, of course, there will be a return to normalcy in America's relationship with one of its closest democratic allies in the world. So, in that regard, thank you Kerry and thank you Obama.

And to those who proclaim the need for an international organization to better ensure peace in the world, why not a powerful League of Democratic Nations? Should we continue to rely on dictatorships and thugocracies, themselves the greatest threats to peace, to help us accomplish what doesn't come naturally to them? No. There is a better way. The League of Nations was a failure and the U.N. has proven to be an even costlier failure.

Snowflakes, Misfits & Arrested Development

...these descriptors immediately come to mind when I read about anti-Trump protesters burning American flags, beating Trump supporters and destroying private property. Their shameful and often brutish conduct belies their compassion, adherence to inclusivity, and their caring, peaceful, patriotic and virtuous pretenses. So much for their intellectual honesty and moral superiority.

Bereft of maturity and emotional stability, for these empty-headers, it's all about THEM and what THEY want, and what they want NOW. Adolescence on steroids. Like naughty boys and girls who didn't get their way, adolescent venting and temper tantrums now plague our streets, universities, the media and political circles. Embarrassing.

Most troubling is that after years of intensive everyone-gets-a-trophy Progressive indoctrination, many of these emotionally debilitated snowflakes will be tomorrow's "leaders". Ouch.

What they are incapable of understanding is that it is precisely this kind of immaturity and lawlessness which lead to Trump's election. Mature Americans of all ages are sick of the Left's bullying, thuggery, double-standards and childishness

Now's NOT the Time to be Blinded by Euphoria

Not meaning to throw a wet blanket on festivities, but this:

With Trump’s merciful victory at the polls last night, the Progressive onslaught has been abated—for the moment anyway.

But we must remember that this Marxist attack on our way of life will never dissipate; this sinister ideological threat will continue to lurk in the shadows awaiting another opportunity to undermine our traditional values and the republic itself. Count on it !

As a leader of the Alinskyite machine, Hillary has been electorally vanquished--but by only the slimmest of margins. That reality alone should give us pause and underscore our need for caution.

There are still many conniving, single-minded Progressives/Globalists out there--primarily on the Left but also on the Right--who are ready and willing to supplant Hillary and Obama to advance their insidious transformational goal.

In short, go ahead and celebrate. God knows we all need and deserve it. But, this is not a time to slip back into the clutches of apathy, neglect, disengagement or suicidal compromise with Progressivism. That's what got us into trouble in the first place.

Vigilance, remaining informed and politically engaged at every level are every bit as important now as they have always been for a free people who cherish their Liberty and traditional values.

Here's to the undaunted patriots out there who challenged the tyrannical system on November 8th and, in so doing, breathed new life back into our Republic.

Hillary's Anti-Trump "October Surprise" UNsurprising, Flat

In the face of Hillary’s shameless pathological lying and her well-documented locker room level obscenities directed at those who have both protected and advised her over the years, the misplaced kerfuffle over Trump’s locker room vulgarity occurring some eleven years ago is clearly driven more by the politics of personal destruction than by personal sensibilities. 

Admittedly, the disengaged and often ignorant American voters have produced two terrible presidential candidates, neither of whom I find acceptable, but both of whom mirror what we as a people have become. Not pretty, huh?

That said, for me it must come down to this: either we knowingly vote for an unindicted felon whose recklessness has imperiled national security and whose callous maladministration directly contributed to the needless slaughter of four Americans in Benghazi, or we vote for an unpolished politician whose vulgarity--which, while offensive, pales in comparison to that of the Clintons--intends to appoint Constitution-first justices to the Supreme Court.

The sensible choice should be screamingly obvious to all but the ideologically blind.

But, let's face it, folks: the Establishment, both Left and Right, bereft of principle and focused entirely upon their own cushy political careers, are not looking for a heartfelt apology from Trump. No, they're looking for a public execution.

If Hillary is Elected, What Then?

While appearances are often deceiving, at this juncture I am convinced Mr. Trump will most likely fail in November. Why?  He's not a practiced, professional politician and most Americans are conditioned to believe that only a person who grammatically and smoothly articulates in riddles and double-talk--not a citizen representative--makes for an effective steward. Thus, I have precious little faith that the painfully ignorant American electorate is capable of doing in November what primal survival instincts would require of them. 

My guess is that millions of voters will be inclined to either stay home, play pokemon, or do whatever it is the mindless do, and, reflecting Hillary's character flaws and aping indoctrinated automatons everywhere, millions more will be blindly seduced by Progressive tyranny and corruption. Yes, they’re THAT stupid.

Ultimately, in a democratic republic the People bear SOLE responsibility for the quality and character of their leadership. So, it’s not at all surprising that this dumbed-down electorate will continue to anoint sub-standard, self-serving, elitist stooges of the first order. In short, the People shall reap what they sow until elections no longer matter and political oppression becomes the order of the day.

As for me, and in concert with other patriots, I plan to seriously push for organized civil disobedience, state nullification and, yes, secession if Progressive thugs and Islamist sympathizers are again swept into power in November. There is simply no other reasonable recourse for thoughtful, fearful American patriots who cherish Liberty, Christian traditions, constitutional order and free enterprise.

If we objectively compare our current political condition to those conditions plaguing  Americans in 1776, it becomes painfully obvious that the level of totalitarianism and lawlessness Americans confront today is far more insidious. What patriots are willing to do about this is the burning question.

Finally, unity at ANY price is suicidal, and our Founders, to a man, would never have advocated unity over Liberty. Never!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will YOU choose?

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

Courage & Virtue in Short Supply

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very importantly, Hillary's violation of this statute and her serial lying to the American public on this matter clearly render her completely unfit for office, and her election would most surely lead to the tumult Mr. Comey may have been trying to avert. Of that I'm certain. And, if  there is no such justifiable outrage or tumult, Americans should practice kneeling because they no longer citizens in a nation of laws and justice, but subjects of an all-powerful political aristocracy.

Hillary Lucks Out Again

Well, the suspense is over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Indicted, Can Hillary Prevail?

I did some exploratory digging to get a somewhat cogent answer to that question, and , in brief, here is what I found so far:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinerlog.blogspot.com

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

A Powerful Judiciary is the Very Definition of Tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

In the comments section I entered the following:

 "Good article, but PLEASE PLEASE get beyond the prevailing and wholly erroneous revisionist belief that 'ole Abraham Lincoln fought the so-called "civil war", aka War of Northern Aggression or War for Southern Independence, to free the blacks.UNMITIGATED HOGWASH! 

Like most of his contemporaries in the North, Abe was a shameless white supremacist who tore the country apart for his own political and economic purposes. He ain't no hero of mine, nor should he be to any clear-headed American anywhere.

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

For starters, I urge truth-seekers to read a scholarly and extremely well-documented book entitled "The Real Abe Lincoln". Sobering and educational to say the least, the book should remind us that it is always the victor in war who writes the history of that conflict, calculatingly skewed, tendentious and revisionist though that account may be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(“If anybody tries to penetrate the past with the knife of the present will always act in vain. The past is invulnerable. Such attempts can only cause the present or the future to bleed." - Gregor Brand”
― Simon Schwartz)

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

Hillary Reflects What Too Many Americans Have Become: Unprincipled Dolts

On Politico, the headline read "Clinton Aide: Reporters don't ask questions voters care about." 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Pollyanna I. Semper paratus. 

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

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

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

Leftist Bullies & America's Future

Amidst the presidential campaign maelstrom, the relentless Progressive violations of our liberties, traditional values, religious freedom, free enterprise, and constitutional underpinnings continue. Now this:

Until I recently read about the 16 Attorneys General--all Progressives, of course--who are promising to target any company that challenges Liberalism's climate change RELIGION, I honestly thought I was beyond being shocked by the Left's propensity for tyranny and bullying.

Reminiscent of the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition of 1478, these fascist high priests intend to vigorously pursue corporate "climate change deniers" to the "fullest extent of the law"--whatever contrived law that might be.

Asserting that "climate change deniers" are committing "fraud" and are, therefore, unprotected by that pesky First Amendment, these modern-day inquisitors--New York State's AG Schneiderman being among them--plan to impose huge fines against anyone who declines to blindly submit to their scientifically unproven man-made global warming religious dogma. ("I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me." Schneiderman and his co-collaborators have clearly forgotten this divine admonition.)

This undisguised attempt to stifle core political speech and vigorous SCIENTIFIC debate should be roundly condemned by all Americans! AG Schneiderman, among other inquisitors, should not only apologize for his loathsome thuggery; he should either resign or be removed from office.

Is it any wonder the citizens of this deeply divided country are in the throes of despair, uncertainty and anger? Is it any wonder that desperate Americans are turning to "outsiders" like Donald Trump? Is it any wonder that secessionist movements, most notably the Texas Nationalist Movement, are gaining in strength, support and determination?

Make no mistake, folks. Our Founders would NEVER EVER have tolerated the tyranny which now assails us at every turn and from every direction. To a man, they would have full-throatedly counseled civil disobedience, State nullification and, if all else fails, either secession or outright rebellion.

And this: NOTHING--absolutely NOTHING--the British did to Americans in the 18th century which convinced American colonists to secede from England can in any way compare to the awful intensity of today's Progressive assault on our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in this terrible light, is it really a stretch to reasonably suggest that this union of sovereign States (as originally conceived anyway) has, in fact, finally outlived its usefulness. (Personally, I believe that our societal, political and economic problems are now so severe and so embedded as to be effectively irremediable. No Pollyanna I.)

So, we can either continue to submit to or otherwise accommodate the intolerable, or we can exercise our unalienable rights to appropriately resist. In any event, I urge all patriots to look solemnly to our Founders for wisdom and direction in these extremely troubling times. And remember this: unalienable rights are unalienable only to the extent we are determined to defend them.

("The chasm between conservatives and liberals grows wider by the day. We live in a house divided. This profound difference between people on the Right and Left will have to be managed with diligence if our country is not to fragment and fall apart. Great leadership will be required. This, not income inequality, is the moral issue of our time." Ed Klein, Writer/Reporter, 2015)

("Given that the rise of Sanders theatens to extirpate the last vestiges of classical liberalism in the Democratic Party, there has never been a time in my life when limited and accountable government in the United States is under greater threat...classical liberalism will continue to decline." John O. McGinnis, Writer and Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern University, 2016)

("...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." Congressman Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 1847)

("Whenever the people shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Pres. Abraham Lincoln, Inaugural Address, 1861)

AN APPEAL FOR SANITY & NATIONAL SURVIVAL

TO THOSE OF YOU WHO SAY WE SHOULDNT SUPPORT CRUZ BECAUSE HE IS INELIGIBLE, this:

I am fully aware of the thoughtful and well-meaning constitutional arguments on both sides of this issue, and I personally and objectively believe that, like Rubio, Chester A. Arthur and Jindal, Ted Cruz is very likely constitutionally ineligible.

That said, however, and faced with the awful prospect of either a felonious Alinskyite (Hillary) or a totally ideologically unknown loose cannon usurping the White House next January, I’ve taken the desperate position that “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” (Goldwater); thus, with that justification in mind, I am necessarily supporting Cruz who, except for his arguably being on the wrong side of the eligibility issue, is a demonstrably constitution-first guy we can clearly count on to restore constitutional order. And since the entrenched political class, nearly to a man, loathes Cruz, does that not demonstrate his credibility as an "outsider" and a fearless defender of our republic? And isn’t that precisely what our greater patriotic purpose should be?

Therefore, I URGE all patriots who champion a return to constitutional order and first principles to support Cruz both financially and on the ground as volunteers.

Think about it: nothing less than the survival of what precious little remains of our constitutional republic is at stake. In that light, waxing philosophically over the issue of eligibility seems a tad inappropriate and misdirected.

Dare we permit the election of either Donald or Hillary? Hillary is the devil we know; Donald is the potential devil we don't really know at all.

Please jettison the blinders and temper your justifiable anger long enough to successfully get this nation through these primaries and the general election in November. Get behind Ted Cruz!!! I beg you!!! See beyond your anger and disillusionment. This could well be our last chance to get it right.We simply cannot risk blowing it again.

Can the Voter Revolution be Stopped?

The current "grassroots revolution" is visceral, real and a very long time in coming. But, now it's here, and the elites are pulling all stops to extinguish the anger, quell the unwashed masses, protect their privilege. But it won't work this time. The genie is out of the bottle and this justifiable revolution will not be extinguished, tempered, demoralized.

Only time will tell if the rise of Trumpism will remedy our woes. But, right now--and unless Hillary, the felonious Alinskyite on the Left, manages to squeak out a victory in November--it appears that Trumpism as a political solution, for better or for worse, will have to play itself out. At this historical juncture, there appears to be no other peaceful, viable recourse.

Intensely interesting and profoundly unsettling times. Let's hope what precious little remains of our republic survives this maelstrom.

And this concluding remark: we are no longer a nation of laws firmly moored to foundational principles. Unmoored and floundering, for the immediate future our fate as a unified nation remains in the hands of those entrenched political elites who have so recklessly launched us upon this dangerous course. Where it all ends is anybody's guess. As for me, I'm predicting growing very civil tumult and, eventually, disunion.