Trump's Ban/Refugee Suspension Temporarily OKed

From my reading of the SCOTUS ruling this morning, here's what my understanding is:

In the interest of national security, 9 justices have ruled that the Trump ban is in force pending a final SCOTUS decision on the matter some time after the court reconvenes in October. This ban applies to persons in the six countries (Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq) covered in Trump's revised travel ban order (EO-2) and will apply to all persons in those countries EXCEPT bonafide students (already accepted by a university), employees who have been offered and have accepted employment by a US company, invited lecturers and those with a "close familial relationship" in the US. It also broadly validates the President's authority to exercise immigration policy as part of his constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy.

From my reading of the ruling, this also validates the President's authority to immediately enforce a suspension of refugee admissions into the US pending the President's review of the current vetting process. Exception is granted to those foreign nationals with "close familial" ties in the US. Also, the 50,000 refugee cap is authorized, but can be exceeded to accommodate those refugees with close family ties. (Lots of greedy refugee resettlement workers here are loudly wailing and moaning. Get the anti-depressants out.)

Though pleased, am shocked the court actually upheld the law for a change. How very novel. That said, we can still count on more case-by-case litigation from leftist loons. Chaos is their God.

SCOTUS "Ruling" on Trump Ban Imminent

An immigration and refugee administrator/counselor for 22 years before my retirement in 2003, I would be appalled and sickened if SCOTUS once again flouts congressional intent by siding with the flawed "rulings" of the 9th and 4th circuits.

And what is especially odious and terrifying to me is the fact that we today have come to believe that SCOTUS jurists, America's NINE un-elected, unaccountable, black-robed, divinized judicial Delphic Oracles are somehow empowered by the Constitution to nullify executive or legislature edicts/laws.

Article III grants SCOTUS no such authority, and never has!!!!! The Court can opine, but NOT RULE and enforce. The weight of their opinion is that of moral suasion and nothing more. Their OPINIONS regarding the constitutionality of matters brought before them are no more nor less valid and sacred than the opinions of the sovereign States, their creators, or of the Executive and Congress. Jefferson and his fellow founders warned of this judicial tyranny. Well, it's here and what the hell are WE and our so-called "representatives" going to do about it? I suspect WE will whine and our representatives will duck and cover--AGAIN. Not the way a constitutional republic is supposed to operate.

There's a reason this bumper sticker appears prominently on the rear window of my vehicle: "Secession Sounds Better Every Day". I dream of a return to Jeffersonian republicanism which existed before Lincoln's Revolution, aka Lincoln's War, which turned this government and this republic into a top-down crony capitalist nightmare. Wilson, TR and the Roosevelts merely accelerated our rendezvous with national suicide.

Yes, I'm extremely angry and fed-up with the lawlessness and our leaders' faithlessness to and ignorance of our founding principles. Because enough of us understand what is really going on, and are incensed by this lawlessness, history teaches us that this grotesque state of affairs is not going to end well for any of us. The lines of division have been clearly drawn.

That said, in the case of the Trump ban the immortal SCOTUS judges may actually do the right thing--how novel--and summarily dismiss the lawless "rulings" of the 9th and 4th circuits. And, of course, I would be pleased with such an outcome. BUT, no matter what these divine Oracles "rule", the foundational problem of an overreaching judiciary will still afflict us all.

Confederate States of America: A Model of Jeffersonian Democracy

DID YOU KNOW that the Confederate States of America was an economic powerhouse before Lincoln's lawless and needlessly ruinous slash & burn invasion?

By a huge margin, Per Capita income in EVERY southern state exceeded that of every state in the North, and economic historians described the CSA economy in 1861 as the 4th most powerful in the world. (So, it wasn't a backward, poor and medieval swamp deserving of invasion.) Man, have we been sold a bill of goods all these years by Lincoln apologists passing themselves off as objective American historians.

And just how Jeffersonian vs Hamiltonian/Lincolnian was the CSA governmental structure? Intended to inhibit federal overreach/tyranny/corruption/crony capitalism, here's just a sampling of the restraints incorporated in the CSA Constitution:

1. To restrain general gov't spending, thus containing the growth and corruption of that gov't, the CSA Constitution required a 2/3 vote in each legislative chamber just to INTRODUCE a spending bill !!!!!

2. Bills were clean, i.e. no tack-ons unrelated to the bill under consideration = no pork, no 3,000 page indecipherable omnibus bills catering to an army of lobbyists.

3. Spending for Internal improvements, aka infrastructure, had to be financed by the States and/or private sector--NOT the central government !!! (This is also a requirement in our Constitution though you wouldn't know it. Trump, take careful note !!!)

4. The one 6-yr term President possessed the line-item veto

***5. By a 2/3 vote in each chamber any State in the confederacy was empowered to impeach ANY federal officer operating in that State's territory requiring a timely trial of that offending officer by the national Senate. (You can be sure that reduced federal abuse, overreach at the State level, huh?)

6. Only 3 States (roughly 25% of the States) were needed to propose amendments to the Constitution, and 2/3 of all States were required to ratify same. (Our Constitution under Art V requires 2/3 of States to propose amendments and 3/4 to ratify.)

7. For new States to be admitted into the confederacy, a 2/3 vote in both the House & Senate was required. (Currently, our Constitution requires but a simple majority in both houses of Congress to admit a new State.)

This is just a sampling of the enlightened Jeffersonian provisions contained in the CSA Constitution, some or all of which today's Convention of State advocates should seriously take a look at. (We should carefully consider these provisions for incorporation in our our own US Constitution.)

The more I read about the REAL Confederate States of America the more I come to realize how painfully misinformed we have all been regarding the prosperity, productivity and educational level of the CSA (1 in 248 Southerners were college educated vs 1 in 780 in the North). And BOTH whites and blacks shared in this prosperity. (There's a good reason why so many 'slaves' gallantly fought on the side of the Confederacy.)

Over the years, self-serving revisionist historians hellbent on rendering the North--and Czar Lincoln in particular--the "good guys" have sold us a pack a lies. After all, it is the victor who writes the history, inclusive of all the misinformation and spin, of course. (If you get a chance, for starters check out Donald Livingston's videoed historical commentaries about all aspects of that otherwise terrible and deliberately mischaracterized period in our history. Very enlightening, educational. Might even piss ya' off when you realize how hood-winked we've been all this time.)

For some time now, I have understood that the South can take justifiable pride in its illustrious history and the statuary honoring its heroes, the latter which the crazed Fascist Left revisionists have been intent on destroying these last several years.

Oh, and why did the South lose its War for Independence? Very simply, it was badly out-gunned and terribly out-numbered. 

Alternative to a Union on Life Support?

Been giving some thought to how best to solve our country's slide into self-induced oblivion. With that in mind, I posted this on Real Conservatives and other sites. What's your take?

Alternative to a Union on Life Support?

Bearing in mind that the founders were very careful not to include the word "perpetual" to describe the union of States the Constitution fashioned, and understanding that history dictates that no nation is immutable, then why not a purposeful re-organization of this system to better ensure its stability and adherence to republicanism and constitutional order?

What has been proposed in the past is the political break-up of the union into 4-5 Administrative Regions, each comprised of legislative representatives based upon the 1:30,000 ratio rule suggested by our founders. (Today's unmanageable ratio is 1:730,000), Each of those Regions would also elect a Regional Governor. Those Regions would be essentially self-governing except in those areas which have already been specifically delegated by the States to the general gov't. (Think Swiss cantons, the purist federal system existing in the world today.) And as the 1:30,000 ratio is exceeded, a Region is duly downsized by the creation of additional Regions as needed. What matters is the retention of a manageable ratio of reps-to-constituents, this to ensure a genuine representative republic.

In turn, these Regions would appoint an equal number of Regional "delegates" to the general government, the latter which would pretty much look like it does today, except that the national legislature would be unicameral. All three federal branches would remain, but the Regions would have considerably greater latitude in striking down/nullifying federal executive and judicial edicts as well as administrative regulations.

Short of this remedy, the ONLY peaceful founder-sanctioned remedy is recision/withdrawal/secession by the various States followed by the formation of various independent confederacies which may well opt for a close economic/political/military alliance among themselves. Populated by people with differing cultural outlooks, each confederacy would be republican in nature and would act in its own interest and with its own peculiar ideological biases incorporated into its manner of governing. Those citizens with a more traditional, conservative bias and those with a more utopian/socialist outlook would naturally gravitate toward like minded regions, a reordering which would reduce the current level of cultural/political/ideological turmoil, thus obviating the need for full-on secession.

Whichever remedy works best works for me. Either remedy would be lawful and go a long way to arresting our national suicide. But I hope one or the other occurs SOON!!! Expecting fleeting kumbaya moments of faux unity and the occasional short-lived tamping down of inflammatory rhetoric to solve the fundamental breakdown in constitutional order and the abysmally deep cultural/ideological divide existing today is nothing short of delusional.

Trump Tries to Rein in Federal Domestic Imperialism

As I mentioned previously, the Enclave Clause (Art 1 Sec 8 of the Constitution) specifically limits federal land ownership/control "over all places purchased by consent of the [State} legislature...for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings." THAT'S IT! No other purposes! Thus, if the feds want to expand that list to other objects, then the Constitution needs to be amended. Neither Congress nor the President is empowered to issue edicts or to pass laws in this regard which do not comport with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

So, while I'm pleased Trump and Zinke are trying to administratively reduce Obama's and his predecessors' obscenely greedy land grabs within various State territories, my advice to the Administration is to consult the Constitution and fulfill your Constitutional obligations. Respect and uphold Art I Sec 8 of the Constitution.

Let there be no mistake, folks. The blame for this federal imperialism falls squarely on the feckless, spineless States themselves. Their lack of principle, their ignorance of their constitutional authority in such matters, and their greedy acceptance of massive federal handouts over the years (bribes) have enslaved them and their citizens. And now they whine and look to their enslavers, the feds, to bail them out of a situation they themselves created by permitting this lawless federal land grab in the first place. Jerks!

Here We Go Again: Another Subversive Lib Assault on Trump's Legitimacy

As part of the Liberals' orchestrated assault upon the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, and on the basis of their shoddy understanding of the Constitution's "emoluments clause", two Liberal Attorney Generals (Maryland & DC) have recently sued Trump for earning income from his properties while he is President. Unsurprisingly, their contention is utterly without foundation. To counter idiotic leftist arguments in this regard, it is important you arm yourself with facts. Don't permit lawyerly spinmeistering to dictate your viewpoint. When in doubt, ALWAYS consult the Constitution. Here are the facts:

An “emolument” is a perk attached to an office. See Webster’s 1828 dictionary which is more contemporaneous to our founding period http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Emolument.
See also the 12 Federalist Papers which mention the term “emoluments” http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

"Emoluments” are mentioned at Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, and at Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause.

Art. I, Sec. 9, last clause, prohibits any federal officer from accepting (without the consent of Congress), any present, Emolument, Office, or Title from any foreign State.

Art. II, Sec. 1, next to last clause, prohibits the President from receiving additional Emoluments from the United States or from any State.

The Emoluments now attached to the office of Presidency include living in the White House, with a full staff, Air Force One, security protection, and similarly relevant perks. Those perks can’t be increased or decreased by the United States or any of the 50 States. And Trump can’t get a job lobbying for any foreign State while he is President.

But this has nothing to do with Trump’s private businesses!

George Washington’s Mount Vernon was a large business enterprise selling whiskey, flour, among other produce. When Washington’s farm sold its produce, the proceeds weren’t “emoluments” within the meaning of the Constitution – they were the income from his farm.

It has been so long since we had a President who did something besides live off the taxpayers while in public office, that we have forgotten that real men can have successful businesses BEFORE they run for office. In fact, it was the purpose of the founders to send "citizen representatives" to Washington for short periods of time who would, after performing their civic responsibilities as stewards of their country, return to their regular vocations/businesses. The founders did not intend that income earned from their private enterprises automatically be denied these citizen representatives while they were fulfilling their civic responsibilities in Washington. Today, of course, most representatives to Washington become careerists and blood-suckers who haven't a clue as to the original meaning and intent of a Constitution most of whom have never even read - NOT what our founders anticipated or intended.

Why do these AGs do this? Recall the Democrat Goal: RULE OR RUIN