Search This Blog

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Personal Ideology vs Duty, Honor, Country

Remember this feminist Secret Service agent who asserted that she'd be willing to take jail time over taking a bullet for President Trump? Well, she's no longer with the Secret Service (hallelujah!), but, to ensure she doesn't lose her federal pension (heaven forbid!), she is being permitted to remain an employee of Homeland Security.
As might be expected, some of her fellow Secret Service agents are clearly unhappy with the decision to keep her on in any capacity. Like, how can she be trusted to faithfully accomplish any mission if the mission conflicts with her ideological, feminist predilections. But, hey. At least she's no longer a threat to the President, and in this day and age of relativism and lawlessness when duty and honor are secondary, I guess that's the most we can hope for.

Judicial Overreach: Why Does No One Talk About CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES??

With respect to the Hawaii and Maryland judges' blatantly unconstitutional "rulings" against Trump's immigration EO, has anyone noticed how nimbly every single talking head and politician--BOTH left and right--have studiously avoided talking about the constitutional remedy for judicial overreach? Is it Ignorance, political Cowardice or a pervasive and irreparable Disdain for what has become an irrelevant U.S. Constitution? In truth, folks, it is all three. Our constitutional republic is and has been for a very long time now but an illusion. That reality should frighten every American.
Again, the remedy (Articles I and III) is twofold: 1) impeach the offending judges (not merely allow the 9th court to metastasize into three more toxic courts), and 2) the president should, in accordance with his oath of office, summarily ignore/nullify those judicial rulings.
Nothing less than these Constitutional remedies should be acceptable. Ignoring the Constitution and hiding under our desks are not remedies. They are dodges. Someone among our honorable, principled leadership and thoughtful throng of talking heads is duty bound to actually advance and promote these constitutional remedies.

Friday, March 24, 2017

More Proof that Progressives Aim for Political Supremacy--at ANY COST!!

To "familiarize" newly arrived refugees with the "democratic process", the Nebraska Democrat Party greets each refugee newcomer with a basket of goodies including, of course, basic needs such as voter registration forms. Nothing like planting the seeds, huh?.
Can there really be any serious doubt as to the Democratic Party's motivation? To the Democrats, refugees and immigrants present the possibility of Democratic electoral dominance in the future. Absolutely nothing more....
See More
“When [President Trump] put in his racist travel ban we put out a call to action..."

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Bureau of Labor Stats Still Misleading

Relying on Bureau of Labor Statistics is helpful ONLY if those stats accurately reflect the actual employment situation. 
This unemployment charade has gone on long enough, and Trump can easily rectify the situation by simultaneously publicizing both the misleading U-3 unemployment figure (which, for self-serving political reasons, all administrations have heretofore touted) AND the more accurate U-6 figure. 
March'17 seasonably adjusted unemployment figures: 4.7% (U-3) and 9.2% (U-6).
Since transparency, accuracy and integrity in federal reporting should be the goal of any administration, I say let Trump start publicizing BOTH the U-3 and U-6 figures. Doing anything less is unhelpful and purposely evasive.

Obamacare Disaster vs Obamacare Lite vs Constitution

OMG. The inane, politically-driven onslaught on Ryancare/Trumpcare has begun.
OMB notes that 14 million will lose health care coverage next year. But, what the Left isn't saying is that those 14M will CHOOSE--that's CHOOSE--not to be insured. They won't be illegally mandated to buy an insurance policy they don't want. And what the hell is wrong with exercising that level of personal freedom?
That said, my thought: since Ryancare will provide tax incentives to enable folks to purchase health insurance of their choice (far less oppressive than Obamacare, but no less unconstitutional), those tax incentives should be withheld or otherwise denied if those persons don't use those tax credits to purchase health care insurance.
The nice things about Ryancare are 1) affordable deductibles,2) no more grossly unconstitutional mandate to purchase (which will really upset our Progressive Chief Justice Roberts and his Leftist pals on the Hill), 3) a budgetary savings of over $300B over 10 years, and, of course, 4) REAL affordable health care each purchaser can tailor to his/her health care needs and individual budgets.
Eventually, of course, and being one of those annoying constitutional originalists, I would dearly love to see health care returned in its entirety to the States where it constitutionally belongs. Get health care out of DC and out of the pockets of DC lobbyists.

"Wiretapping" or "Monitoring"

Given the "confusion", deliberate or otherwise, over Trump's tweet regarding Trump Tower's being "wiretapped", this earlier post bears repeating.
This cuts right to the marrow of Trump's claim that Obama listened into his conversations at Trump Tower or elsewhere.
Recently, Judge Napolitano beautifully explained that on the strength alone of a phonecall, a President can direct the NSA to "monitor" conversations of any US Citizen, presidential candidate or otherwise. No FISA warrant needed.
But this also means that President Trump can order NSA to divulge to him any and all transcripts of his conversations which may have been ordered by Obama, an Obama order which would have been blatantly lawless and unconstitutional. Let's hope Trump has those transcripts.
Though there is a deliberate Liberal attempt to confuse the public by asserting that wiretaps can be condoned only with a FISA court warrant, what the Libs AREN'T telling the public is that "wiretapping" and "monitoring" are two different activities. Wiretapping requires a FISA warrant, but NSA monitoring does not. And the brighter ones among the political class know this. Trump may have used the term "wiretapping" in an effort to encompass both "wiretapping" and "monitoring", an excusable literary "offense".
The more I read about the burgeoning Obamagate, the more certain I am that heads could roll. And if proof is forthcoming--which could be very easily produced-- that Obama did, in fact, order the "monitoring" (not "wiretapping") of Trump's campaign conversations, this could blow this thing wide open. And none too soon, as I see it.
Of course, snarky lib stooge Shep Smith of FOX (yes, FOX) is piling on Trump for his tweet's use of the term "wiretapping" vs "monitoring". He's also denigrating Kellyanne and Sean Spicer for drawing a distinction between the two terms.Very unhelpful.
Let the games begin! Public beheadings are so very entertaining.
Finally, let's just hope Trump's claim of being wiretapped and/or monitored isn't found to be without foundation. Not good for the President's credibility. We shall see....

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Trump's Infrastructure Spending Plan is Grossly UNCONSTITUTIONAL

FELLOW TRUMP SUPPORTERS won't like this, but that's the way it goes sometime.
Over and over again, I have appealed for a restoration of constitutional order. Central to that appeal is the requirement that we each--despite our proclivities or political persuasion--faithfully adhere to the Constitution, a tall order in this age of relativism and self-destructive bread-and-circuses giveaways.
While I appreciate the need for repairing/modernizing/upgrading our "infrastructure", point to any article in the Constitution which permits the federal government to fund such projects. (Neither Art 1, Sec 8, the Necessary & Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause nor the terribly misinterpreted Welfare Clause permit it.)
In short, there are some campaign promises not worth keeping--especially if acting on those promises violates the Constitution one is pledged to uphold.
You need but to review the words of James Madison, "Father of the Constitution", in his message to Congress in 1817 which accompanied his veto of just such an infrastructure bill by pointing out that the Constitution disallows such federal expenditures.
Except for "post roads"--and I suppose, with tongue-in-cheek, we could stretch that definition to encompass the interstate highway system over which many federal postal deliveries are made--Congress has no business whatsoever financing the repair and upgrading of bridges, airports, etc. NONE!!!! ZERO!!!! NADA!!!! There simply is no authority in the Constitution to permit the feds to do this. (To enable Congress to fund such projects would require a constitutional amendment.)
So, where does the rightful authority to rebuild infrastructure lie? The individual States and the private sector!! NOT the federal government!!!!
In short, if we, as patriots, really do support the Constitution, then, in good conscience, we cannot support Trump's infrastructure expenditure plans. It is not only profligate; it is in violation of the Constitution. Don't like what I'm saying? Then listen to the Father of the Constitution. Don't like what he has to say either? Then the Constitution is, at best, an irrelevance to you. And so goes the republic...
Let's not repeat in any way Obama's lawless infrastructure nightmare. Time to draw a line in the stand. It's time to stop such gross violations of the Constitution here and now.
Though they sure as hell act that way for most of the time, States aren't helpless or without financial resources. They can and SHOULD work with the private sector to upgrade infrastructure within their sovereign territories. The federal government is NEVER the answer in such matters.
We continue to surrender our authority to Leviathan at our own peril. More debt and less liberty.
Exactly 200 years ago today, President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of…

Only the States are Constitutionally Empowered to Provide Healthcare

I know most of you won't do it, but I'm begging you to please read pages 70-74 in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action". Read it three times. Only 5 pages. Carefully researched, it succinctly and clearly explains the founders' understanding of the "welfare clause" WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PROVIDING HEALTHCARE!!!!! AGAIN this authority, per the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, rests with the individual States, NOT with the federal government, aka Leviathan. For this reason and without reservation, I support repeal of Obamacare because it is grossly unconstitutional. But, I also advocate the feds' returning healthcare to the States where it constitutionally belongs.
Let's be clear, folks: Ryancare/Trumpcare/Obamacare/whatever federal care, is but another lame-brained, misguided federal entitlement which needlessly adds to our national debt and further erodes both State sovereignty and individual freedom. Is that really what we want?
If we want a suffocating unitary welfare state vs a constitutional republic, then we should support Ryancare or Obamacare. Fine. But, don't then pretend to be advocates for a return to constitutional order. Such a pretense falls flat.
Trump is a good man and is well-intentioned, but he, like so many other patriots today, is caught up in this self-destructive welfare state mentality which has been plaguing our country and our failing brains for over 150 years!
States are MUCH better equipped to experiment with and to provide healthcare models for its own citizens. A one-size-fits-all federal entitlement program is sinister, unmanageable, lawless, uninspired and short-sighted. Here's our chance to get it right, but you know what? We won't--again! And so goes the republic...

Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia (Yawn)

Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. (Bored?) Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia (Bored yet? Well, I AM.)
This is all political theater, folks. Politics, especially today, is truly a blood sport of punching and counter-punching. Precious little else. I'm bored with the side show, and I won't discuss this non-issue ever again.
Trump's tweeted claim is a remarkably perfect application of the military doctrine that "the best defense is a good offense". And since the Libs have nothing legitimate to scream and shout about, they are, like the whining dredges of humanity they are, determined to scream and shout with or without a grown-up reason. It's what kids with annoying temper tantrums do.
So, let them all play in their silly little sandbox, and let Trump's administration continue implementing his agenda to "Make America Great Again". All the rest of this noise is meaningless jousting, palaver and a worthless exercise in one-upmanship. No need for us to get distracted or involved.(And we wonder why so many kids today behave the way they do when so many role models are dipstick politicians.)

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Texas Leads the Way Again

Short of a State's outright nullification--a precursor to secession--of an unconstitutional federal act by the judiciary, congress or the executive branch, per Printz v US (1842) and James Madison's counsel on the subject in Federalist #46, a State may simply refuse to enforce the act within its sovereign territory. This is referred to as "anti-commandeering", a perfectly legitimate remedy to federal overreach which even our renegade courts have upheld over the years. (Though I discussed this subject in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", it bears repeating here.)
With this doctrine in mind, Texas is introducing legislation to establish a permanent committee to review any and all edicts, laws, regulations issued by the federal government to ensure their strict comportment with the original Constitution. And if a federal act is rendered unconstitutional by the committee--and so many federal acts these days are just that--the State legislature (both houses) would vote on whether or not that particular act is constitutional and whether or not Texas will honor the act. With legislative passage and the Governor's signature, the federal act in question would not be honored or otherwise enforced in the State.
**If ALL States were to replicate this approach, federal tyranny would be drastically reduced throughout the land and a semblance of constitutional order would quickly return to this tattered republic.
NOTE: Nullification is a much more serious--but entirely legitimate--remedy as well. Invoking the 10th Amendment authority to nullify a federal act would entail a State's arresting, fining and imprisoning both State and Federal agents who attempt to enforce a federal act rendered unconstitutional by the State. Invoking the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine is a gentler way to achieving the same result, that being to render an unconstitutional federal act of no effect within a State's sovereign territory.
Nice to see Texas once again taking the lead in returning our republic to its first-principles. Would love to see other States do the same. Sadly, I fear most are too heavily bribed by the feds to resist by either method. And so it goes...
AUSTIN, Texas (March 1, 2017) – A bill introduced in the Texas House would create a mechanism to review federal laws and end state cooperation with enforcement of…

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Returning Sovereignty to the States is the States' Responsibility

While the President's heart and mind are in the right place, what we must always understand is that what the federal government "gives" to us one day can be easily and tyrannically taken back the next.
States must understand that, per the 10th Amendment, the founders delegated very limited, specific powers to the federal government, reserving ALL other powers, either written or unwritten--like defining marriage, motorcycle helmet policies, ad infinitum--to the States or to the People.
Decades of judicial activism, executive tyranny and legislative overreach have effectively eroded State sovereignty/authority to the point at which we no longer have a functioning.constitutional republic. We are all ruled by political elites, an oligarchy of corporate and political interests quite at odds with our founding principles.
While President Trump's effort to restore sovereignty to the States is both noble and much appreciated, we must understand that he won't be occupying the Oval Office forever. Thus, to ensure a longer term restoration of State sovereignty and the balance of power envisioned by our founders, it is entirely up to the States and the People to assert their constitutional authority. There is no other viable solution.

President Donald Trump promised a large crowd of American governors that he would work to redirect power from the federal government to the states.