The Constitution's 10th Amendment Cannot Enforce Itself

True, Mr. Jefferson. But, tragically, you and the framers never fully anticipated elective offices morphing into career paths, and sovereign States being forcibly and/or financially enticed to accept their transformation into vassals of the federal government, each State government a sordid microcosm of its master in DC.

Yes, Mr. Jefferson, modern Americans have managed to flip you and your compatriots' best laid plan, the Constitution, on its head. But you and your illustrious colleagues, understanding human nature, DID foresee the very real possibility, indeed the inevitability, of this republic's being reduced to that of an oligarchy or dictatorship. You were dead to rights on that prediction.

In any event, sir, I sincerely thank you and your fellow patriots for expending so much effort and blood to establish what you had hoped to have been a durable constitutional republic. And, you must admit, unlike many of you who divined the end of the republic by 1825 or thereabouts, we have miraculously managed to limp along into the 21st century, of course as anything but a genuine constitutional republic--oh, the trappings of a republic, for sure, but a faint replica nonetheless.

So, State Nullification, an otherwise common sense and natural remedy to check federal tyranny is, today, an unrealistic hope. The People and their respective States have long ago surrendered their sovereignty and faithfulness to first principles, all for a few pieces of federal silver.

So you good folks showed us the way, but we foolishly veered left. The fault is not yours; it is ours.

Solution to Border Problem: ENFORCE EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW

HEADLINE: "Man Who Allegedly Stabbed Father of Seven to Death Had Been Deported SIX Times"

Folks, we don't need "comprehensive immigration reform" (a misleading aphorism employed by open borders types) to fix our immigration problems. We need to ENFORCE existing law and rid ourselves of faithless agenda-driven federal judges who routinely and blatantly undermine the law as it is.

In this case, and like so so many other such cases, Title 8 Section 1325 applies. Deported SIX times, this guy is subject to Sec 1325 which renders illegal entry a misdemeanor carrying with it imprisonment for 6 months for the first offense, and a FELONY and minimum 2 years imprisonment for the second offense. Clearly, we are not enforcing current law. That's the problem.

Right or Left: The Home of the "Isms" Clarified

SO TIRED OF LEFTIES LABELING THE RIGHT AS NAZIS. Talk about psychological projection, huh? Insufferably stupid as well! Just so we are all clear on this, below I've summarized where Fascists, Socialists, Nazis and Communists fall on the political spectrum.

We often hear people parroting words to the effect that communists & socialists are “left” wing, and the NAZIS are “right” wing. Rubbish.

The lie that NAZIS are “right wing” has been disseminated in order to deceive the unthinking.

The German NAZIS and the American neo-NAZIS are NOT “far right”!

“NAZI” is the acronym for “National sozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”. The literal English translation is, “national SOCIALIST German workers’ party”.

**The NAZIS were socialists! They were “national” socialists, as contrasted with Marx & Engels who were “international” socialists. But, socialists all.

NAZIS have been called “far right” in order to sabotage the thinking of the American people. This is how the sabotage works: The Communists are “far left”. The NAZIS are “far right”. Gee! I better be in the middle – a moderate! (Meaning I stand for nothing.)

So under this false model, both “extremes” are presented as bad. Only the moderate middle is good. And the best alternative to such extremes, that being limited constitutional government, is not even mentioned. How convenient.

In truth, extreme right entails anarchy, or the absence of government altogether. Whereas the extreme left, which is in thrall of big government, entails all the notorious isms.

Collectivism with all its variants (communism, fascism, Nazism, Fabian socialism, syndicalism, etc.) are all on the same side [collectivism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, terror, & government tyranny]. The distinctions between these variants are only minor and technical.

The alternative to all of them is limited constitutional civil government – such as our Framers gave us.

The above explanation, which should be obvious to anyone who can think, is not original with me. Ayn Rand pointed it out somewhere many decades ago.

The "Trump" Climate Warming Report? NOT!!!

Environmental religionists remain shameless ideologues. That "Trump Administration" climate change "study" is their latest foray into the world of disinformation and hysteria.

Look, we all know this administration is embedded with legions of Obama holdovers and other assorted the-sky-is-falling crackpots and opportunists. So dubbing the recent gloom & doom climate warming report a Trump study is pure fantasy. Did you know that key elements of this "scientific analysis" were the work of one Andrew Light, a hardcore climate warming advocate and, by the way, a philosophy professor with zero science credentials. The "study" was also financed by the notorious brothers grim, Soros and Steyer. But, hey. The money's good. Right, Professor Light?

Perhaps Trump should rattle the cage at the US Office of Global Research (OMG) from which this report seems to have originated and see how many global warming cultists fall out. Then can their butts! Selfless civil servants my a**.

Birthright Citizenship: Arm Yourself with the Facts

I'm going to risk boring you to death yet again. But it is done for a noble purpose: TO INFORM/EDUCATE. Only after many months of research in 2013 was I able to satisfactorily summarize the issue of birthright citizenship in a manner which, I hope, proves helpful to the reader. For me, when constitutional issues arise, I firmly believe we must unfailingly and faithfully look to the framers and ratifiers--not to mere modern day opinions/viewpoints/interpretations, most of which are flawed and in clear violation of original meaning. And it is this approach to which we should all commit our energies when it comes to properly and honestly dealing with any constitutional issue. After all, you know what they say about opinions. Also, don't solely rely upon the legal views of attorneys graduated from poison ivy league law schools where law students are taught that the Supreme Court is supreme--not the clear original meaning of the Constitution, this in defiance of Art VI Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause). And, of course, never rely upon the panoply of media talking heads, faux experts and political hacks to do your work for you. YOU do the work. Consult the framers as to their meaning and intent. With that, excerpted from Chapter 8 in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", here is my summary. Again, I hope it is useful:

We’ve all heard the stats: currently, of the developed countries in the world, only the United States and neighboring Canada grant birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.

Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is a perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of the Constitution itself.

By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.

During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O'Reilly's characteristically bombastic--and wholly erroneous--claim that "the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period". Poppycock! He couldn't have carefully read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and troubling. But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads really are.

That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.

Here are my findings and conclusions:

First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.

It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite many assertions to the contrary from both the left and the right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to anchor babies of illegal entrants. In short, I was unable to find ANY convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed to resolve this issue once and for all.

Toward this end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) intended to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there was absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill's language. In any event, the bill failed.

Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.

To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
.
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean “the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”

On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.

John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance is to the US.

Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.

Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word 'jurisdiction', as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, per international protocols, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in that alien's country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical presence in the US alone would not render him/her under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.

The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be easily illustrated by the fact that Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.

In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)

P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.

Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.

Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States", thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignties and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.

Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child, and not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)

In US v Wong Kim Ark (1889), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child's birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. (Note too that the parents of Wong Kim Ark were in the US legally. They were not illegal entrants.)

In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Au contraire! As can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided an unambiguous definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers' themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can't trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)

Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th's framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers and others have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—appeared in the text of this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I'd say.

Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to or proper reliance on the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning violation of the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.

To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.

When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledegook, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”

Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many political activists, globalists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of "birthright citizenship", Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do.

"Birthright Citizenship" NOT Grounded in Law

Section 1, Amendment XIV: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..."

In accordance with the original meaning and intent as clearly stated by the XIV's framers' (Sens. Howard and Bingham), this provision does NOT include automatic "birthright citizenship" to children of illegal aliens, the latter who are subject to the jurisdiction of and owe their allegiance to their countries of origin. And since children, historically, derive their citizenship from their parents, the children of illegals owe their allegiance to their parents' country as well. Anyone caring to understand this section of the amendment needs but to read the words of Sens. Howard and Bingham who wrote the damn thing. (Like I've always counseled, when in doubt as to what is and is not constitutional, READ THE CONSTITUTION and the relative founding documents, e.g. the Federalist Papers, which explain the Constitution's meaning.)

But, since there is needless confusion over the meaning and appropriate application of this section, who should clarify its meaning? Not that faithless gaggle of notoriously revisionist black-robed judicial oligarchs we call the "Supreme" Court. Over the years, the court has consistently and grossly misinterpreted and misapplied XIV, to say nothing of virtually all other provisions in the Constitution. SO, as per Sec 5 of the XIV Amendment, it is wiser to leave it's clarification to the People's representatives in Congress and hope for the best.

Tragically, in the end who can We trust to properly represent us and to uphold the Constitution as originally intended? Have any of our reps even read the Constitution and, more importantly, honored their oath to preserve, protect and defend it? Fortunately, I have but 10 fingers and, sadly, that's likely the number--albeit on the high end--in Congress today who more or less honor their oath. A disturbing and sobering problem for us all.

And why so precious few constitutionalists in Congress? Truth is, a person who adheres to original meaning and intent and who regards his oath as sacred has zero chance of being elected. Hell, I very seriously doubt even Madison and Jefferson could get elected as dog catcher in today's anything goes welfare state. How dangerously far afield we've strayed, huh? The reality is that without promises of unconstitutional bread and circuses, not one of our founders could be nominated today, much less elected.

The Lost Liberal

Just to clarify, there is Classical Liberalism (think Founders) and Modern Liberalism (think Progressives, Socialists, neo-Marxists). Caught in the middle of this ideological maelstrom is the lost "Liberal" who doesn't understand that today's Liberal standard bearer is the modern Democrat Party which has been usurped by Progressives, Socialists, neo-Marxists and Fascists. It is hoped that these clueless liberals of the JFK conservative Democrat genre will find their way out of the abyss into which the Modern Democrat Party has led them. Their rotely voting Democrat because they delusionally "think" that the modern Democrat Party represents their traditional values and political beliefs renders them no less a victim of Modern Liberalism than are Conservatives and other assorted patriots. 

Caravans, Protocols and the Law

FYI. Despite the disinformation and spinning out there, here's why the President is within his constitutional authority to prohibit illegal entrants from applying for asylum. Here are the sections of the Immigration & Nationality Act which specifically grant him such authority:

1. Section 215(a): “Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE.”

2. Section 212(f): “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions HE MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE.”

In view the Central American migrants' violation of international protocols requiring that they accept any first offers of asylum, e.g. Mexico, Trump’s order to permit these migrants to apply for asylum at US ports-of-entry only is, to say the very least, extremely generous. The order also prohibits any gate-crasher who circumvents this policy from applying for asylum; they will be expeditiously deported to their homelands without a hearing. He is also ending the infuriating practice of "catch & release", a remedial action long time in coming. So, under both US law and in accordance with international agreements, alien entries into the US can be restricted or altogether prohibited. That's all you need to know to successfully parry with your disinformational and faux compassionate friends on the Left who cynically view illegals in any form as electoral fodder and nothing more.

VOTERS ENDORSE INCIVILITY & EXTREMISM

MY REACTION to the Demonrats' takeover in the House is one of distress and of great disappointment in the perspecuity and both the ideological and moral compass of far too many Americans.

While not a Demonrat tsumani, aka "wave", such was of little comfort to me. For me, the takeover exposed our nation's Achilles' heel. In effect, too many voters embraced Demonrat incivility, mendacity and political extremism, placing in serious question Americans' faithfulness to traditional values and responsible, virtuous government. (Lesson UNlearned yet again: one doesn't consciously enable or otherwise reward bad behavior & extremism--but that's precisely what millions of American voters did. So, is Demonrat misconduct the new standard? And why not, especially if the party isn't appropriately chastised for its grossly unacceptable misbehavior, extremism?)

The takeover in the House is especially disappointing in light of the Demonrats' unprecedented and relentless thuggery, self-serving shamelessness, heavy-handedness and brazen attacks on the moral fabric and standards of decency in the country over the last two years. In truth, voters, albeit by often slim margins, effectively anointed this inexcusable Leftist misconduct, thus validating such misbehavior in the future. The terrible truth is that erstwhile intolerable and unvirtuous public behavior has now been vindicated by a disturbingly large portion of the American body politic. And that should properly frighten us all.

Following the takeover, when I heard Pelosi's victory speech which amounted to the usual cynical & mendacious claptrap about working across party lines, being transparent, and adhering to the US Constitution, blah, blah, blah, I shook my head in despair and disbelief, but also in wonderment as to how such shameless lying, an art form on the Left, has been so easily excused, unrecognized, ignored or dismissed by those voters who enabled the Demonrat takeover. Are most Americans no longer deserving of virtuous leadership? The short answer is "yes".

Will we survive this voter rejection of our basic beliefs, values and standards of public conduct? A few timely quotes which may help us answer that question:

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

"Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society." Cicero

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction." G.K. Chesterton

Nitwits, Pollyannas and Marxists

I believe this post is even more relevant today than when I wrote it in October 2013.

It's well past time to see things as they really are, and not the way we'd like to see them.

It's well past time to vigorously confront the mendacity and treason of Progressive propagandists and political hacks at all levels and on both sides of the aisle.

For us to continue to tolerate, appease and compromise with these shameless alien ideologues and soulless demagogues must now be regarded by patriots everywhere as dishonorable, suicidal and, thus, without any redeeming value whatsoever.

Without rehashing the litany of lies and obscurantism so unabashedly exhibited by Progressives, for the informed and clear-eyed among us it should now be painfully obvious that owing to the relentless Progressive assault on our political, cultural and economic foundations, our liberties and way of life are imperiled as never before. If we are to thwart the "fundamental transformation of the USA", the Progressive threat to our very survival must be boldly confronted head on and resisted at every turn.

The cacophony of odious scandals and the Progressives' ruthless advancement of secularism and egalitarianism now influences every facet of our society--the military, the government at all levels, our schools and churches, our moral precepts, and now the healthcare system itself.  Why? Because dedicated Progressives understand that for Communism to triumph, the State must successfully undermine the family and religious faith, eliminate the people's ability to defend themselves and to control both their healthcare and the education of their children. And toward that end, the success of Progressive treachery--with the compliance of self-serving elitist enablers on the right as well--has been nothing short of spectacular.

Long ago hijacked by Socialists and outright Marxists, we must be fully mindful that the modern Democratic Party's march toward utopian tyranny is frighteningly on pace to completely wreck the most exceptional experiment in self-government the world has ever known. Sadly, however, far too many Americans have opted to sit idly by as this bone-chilling carnage is perpetrated.

But, we who are still able to see and think and to differentiate between good and evil--and now even a few malcontents on the left--understand that Socialism/Communism violates Natural Law and is, therefore, unworkable and self-destructive. The bountiful historical evidence to substantiate this historical contenton is simply too overwhelming for any rational being to seriously discount. As XM Radio's Andrew Wilkow of "Wilkow Majority" so succinctly stated recently, "the dumbest capitalist can make capitalism work, but the smartest socialist can't make socialism work." For the hardcore leftist, however, this fundamental and unassailable historical truth is nothing more than vile racism wrapped in apostasy.

As today's telltale polls so clearly and disturbingly indicate, among us there are those who believe that all will work out for the best (the Pollyannas, disengaged and uninformed), those who have lost the ability to rationally think at all (the Nitwits), and, of course, the either willfully ignorant or dedicated Marxist Progressives who, bereft of a moral compass, remain hell-bent on blindly steering the ship of state toward certain political collapse and economic oblivion.

Though the malignant cancer of Progressivism/Marxism continues to metastasize throughout our social, economic and political fabric, and despite the growing and unsettling prospect of tyranny's triumph, it's still not too late for determined patriots to prevent this Progressive-induced catastrophe.

Yes, the old republic is in tatters, hanging precariously by a thread, and we have many more years of corrosive Progressive subversion with which to contend. In truth, Uncle Sam is near exhaustion and can't take much more before he expires and his "indivisible union" completely falls apart. Thus, only determined, principled, fearless and unified patriotic pushback can restore our exceptionalism and our way of life.

Given the chasmic ideological divide which exists in this nation today, bipartisanship and political compromise have become virtually unachievable. In this zero-sum ideological struggle, it's become crystal-clear that political compromise with Progressives will not ensure prosperity, rule of law, constitutional order or the inviolability of the American Way, but, rather, surrender and tyranny. For many patriots, therefore, compromising with Progressives is no longer viewed as a reasonable or moral course of action. Understandably, and for many chastened patriots today, compromising with or accommodating Progressives has become synonymous with appeasement and a green light for national suicide. And, for the most part, that's precisely what appeasement has wrought.

Drawing on our Founders' wisdom, I believe we should each carefully and honestly weigh the domestic ideological challenges besetting us, and be fully prepared for what may likely be the Republic's political disintegration and economic ruin. To ameliorate the effects of a nationwide political and economic collapse, I urge all patriots to keep all constitutional and God-given remedies on the table--civil disobedience, state nullification, secession and rebellion.

And always remember that We the People are the ultimate arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional. As guardians of the Constitution and of our Natural Rights, We the People must determine our national destiny, but also the extent of our individual liberties and of our political connections with the whole. This duty cannot be delegated to authoritarian apparatchiks whose single-minded and sinister goal is to dominate every facet of our lives--NOT to judiciously and responsibly represent our legitimate rights as citizens of a once great republic.

"Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." Aristotle

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

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself...a murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." Cicero

"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

Venezuela Dictator Admits Mistake

HEADLINE: "Venezuelan President Finally Admits That Socialism is Broken, Economy Is Destroyed" (August 2018)

Sounds like President Maduro has seen the light? Well, sort of. At least he's acknowledging the abject failure of socialism. With hyperinflation further impoverishing the country and 93% of the population not earning enough for their own food needs, I'd say it was about time someone in Venezuela saw the light.

My guess is that his admission of failure is akin to a Hail Mary pass. He knows he and his regime are finished and that it is only a matter of time. That said, the following exemplifies the superficiality of his supposed epiphany: first, he blames the "US empire", then Chavez, his predecessor, and then the Venezuelan people--yes, the PEOPLE--for the economic disaster his regime created. (And you know what? In a real sense, Mad Maduro's right when he blames the people. The people demanded free bread and circus and they got stung with their own avarice.) Then, he proclaims "I want solutions, Comrades!" Comrades??? Gee, doesn't sound like a liberating epiphany to me. Yup, like socialists everywhere, he can't quite take the blame for his idiocy and can't quite recognize socialism for the scam that it is. This fool is still mired in his self-destructive Marxist ideology. Bad habits are hard to break and genuinely own up to, or so it appears. In any event, his end is mercifully near.

Word of advice to Venezuelans: this time embrace capitalism and individual responsibility, not life-sapping socialism. In the end, free government giveaways are poison. Let's hope you've learned your lesson. Of course, this is a lesson for American socialists to learn as well, but, alas, stupid is as stupid does.

What Happened to Constitutional Rule of Law?

Our judicial system is a disgrace.

In law school, ever wonder how many lawyers and  jurists are required to study the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and other original foundational documents? (Afterall, to properly drive a car, doesn't one have to possess at least a general understanding how the car operates and, very importantly, the rules of the road?) 

Thus, one would logically think that, at the very least, the careful study of original documents would fully consume the first year of law school. No? I mean, after all, our law's origin is supposed to be these foundational documents. Right? However, from all I've read and heard, a paltry 1% of law school grads--at best--understand the constitutional foundations of our law. 

In truth, many of us layman are very likely more knowledgeable about original meaning and intent than most lawyers. It's the lawyers' ritualized "legal process" and the maze of errant laws which give attorneys an edge over us. 

My guess is that those one percenters who, one way or the other, learned something about our founding principles most likely familiarized themselves with those founding documents during their free time--not as part of their classroom instruction. (So, though badly outnumbered, we must be thankful for that 1%, wherever they may be hiding.) 

Given this scenario, is there any wonder why our legal system has strayed so far from the Constitution and the Rule of Law? Today's legal eagles are taught "case law", the reckless principle of "stare decisis" and how to win legal arguments, the be-all-end-all, the bread and butter of modern jurisprudence, which, over the years, has served to routinely contradict, violate and further erode the importance of our Constitution's original meaning and intent. Most lawyerly types and jurists are simply blind to, ignorant or dismissive of those all-important foundational rules of the road. From all I've observed, it's a good ol' boy fraternity of income-driven lawyerly competitors, implacable enemies in court and drinking buddies after the verdicts are reached. For most, it is a game dictated by fabricated rules of the road. Add self-serving political and ideological agendas to this toxic brew, and what we end up with is a faithless, whimsical "living constitution" which enshrines revisionist interpretations and misapplications of the law which further hasten our Constitution's slide into irrelevance and, ultimately, oblivion. End product: Rule by Man, not Rule of Law. And that's where we are today. Tragic.

Any wonder why so much chaos, dysfunction and tyranny both at the Federal AND State level. Lesson learned: when one no longer refers to the road map or GPS, one inevitably gets lost.

Beware the "Convention of States" Scam

For those out there who are still fervently pushing for an Article V Convention of States to amend the Constitution, as framer George Mason unambiguously observed, "the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution"--NOT to re-rewrite the Constitution--a dangerous undertaking to which too many, inclusive of Mark Levin, are wittingly or unwittingly fostering.

Also this quote from deceased Justice Scalia: "I certainly would not want an [Article V] Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa! Who knows what would come of that?"

Comprised of delegates from the several States and enjoined by their respective State leaders to only revise the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 didn't revise the Articles; in secret proceedings the delegates literally created an entirely new Constitution. OK, so we dodged the bullet that time and the Constitution these disobedient delegates created well-served the nation--well until the War Between the States in 1861 which turned the Constitution on its head.(But that's another story. for another time.)

Thus, given the terribly divisive ideological divide and powerfully influential interest groups plaguing this republic today, dare we jeopardize the Constitution with another Convention to "amend the Constitution"? Or would these State delegates do what some of the Art V Convention of States disciples have already demonstrated they would be willing to do, that being to re-write the Constitution and, in the process, even legalize federal usurpations against which we've all been resisting? Rather than cutting the feds down to Constitutional size and crafting amendments with that single purpose in mind, some of the COS-proposed amendments I've reviewed demonstrably enshrine violations of the existing Constitution! Frankly, I was incredulous. Check it out.( Also, for starters please check out Publius Huldah blog and CAAVC sites for some erudite discussions on this issue.) Even among patriotic originalists there are gaping disagreements about the desirability and efficacy of an Art V Convention of States whose product could well end up doing us more harm than good. Would love to have you weigh in.

Chief Justice Roberts, Interim "Swing Voter"?

So, when Justice Kennedy is retired, and until a bona fide originalist Justice is seated on the bench, in the interim will Chief Justice Roberts assume the "swing voter" role? Strange question? I don't think so.

In view his reckless decision to uphold Obamacare's blatantly unconstitutional "individual mandate", one should properly question the consistency of his originalist cred. That decision was an ignominious violation of the Constitution, and most of us know it.

So, what explains Roberts's considerably less than textual, aka conservative, approach to the Constitution? Or, said another way, what explains his unreliable adherence to the Constitution's original meaning and intent?

According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, for whom I have great respect, “Roberts is a conservative, but he is an institutionalist. He believes deeply in the Supreme Court.” I had suspected this long ago, but this is the first time a constitutional scholar has validated that suspicion. If entirely true, this isn't at all reassuring, folks. To me, that means one thing: because of his seemingly overriding respect for the institution itself, then, by extension, Roberts adheres to the destructive doctrine of "judicial supremacy" vs "Constitutional Supremacy", the former a toxic Progressive doctrine which, since the mid-19th century, has resulted in the Court's nearly relentless infidelity to the Constitution.

Again, as Turley points out, "Roberts "believes deeply in the Supreme Court." If we could be assured of his more consistent devotion to the Constitution, I'd feel a helluva lot safer. But, since the guy has given me scant reason to trust him, let's hope a genuine guardian America's first principles is confirmed very soon.

Are We Headed for a Second "Civil War"?

Many continue to repeat this obvious fallacy: given the cultural and political polarity existing in the country today as well as the growing aggressiveness of the Left, a "second civil war" may well occur.

Folks, there wasn't a first "civil war", so how could there be a second? 

The purposely misnamed "American Civil War" (1861-1865) was not--NOT-- a civil war at all. It was a war of secession. For it to have been a bona fide "civil war" both sides would have been vying for complete political control of the country. Historically, that's what civil wars have always been about. Unlike the North which sought political control over the country, both north and south, the Confederate States of America did not seek political dominance. Opting to peacefully withdraw the union, it sought complete INDEPENDENCE only, which mirrors the secessionist aspirations of the American colonies in 1775 when they opted to secede from England in order to establish their own nation. 

That said, what do you suppose the Demonrats want today? Total political and cultural control over the country. And if they resort to violence and/or arms to achieve that end, and if patriots resist them in kind, then, yes, America will experience it's first civil war.

"Abortion Rights": Progressive Ideology vs the US Constitution

Assailed by the frenetic Leftist claim that with the appointment of another originalist to the Supreme Court abortion will be suddenly and cruelly rendered illegal, what these Progressives don't seem to understand--or conveniently ignore--is that the addition of a Justice who will faithfully adhere to his/her Art III duty will more likely result in the Court's rendering opinions which more closely comport with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution--NOT allegiance to unconstitutional, arbitrary Progressive ideological biases. That means that Roe vs Wade, WILDLY and arbitrarily unconstitutional, will and should be overturned. Would that mean "the end of federally-created "abortion rights"? Absolutely!!! Why? Because there is no such federal or Constitutional "right". PERIOD. At that point, the 10th Amendment will kick in:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People".

In other words, like motorcycle helmets, defining marriage, controlling education and a nearly infinite number of other undefined powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, will be properly re-assumed by the individual States. SO, if, say, Alabama outlaws abortion, a person would need to move to or travel to a State which legally condones abortion. That's the way our Founders expected this to work--the so-called "laboratory of the States". A US Citizen is able to vote with his/her feet.

In the years ahead, I strongly suspect that the definition of marriage, a power never ever granted to the federal government by the Constitution, will similarly devolve to the individual States where that power--and so many others which have been usurped by the federal government--properly resides.

It isn't supposed to be about emotions, advancing political dogmas, arbitrarily creating rights out of whole cloth, or personal feelings and biases. It is always supposed to be about the LAW. If you want an abortion or marry a goat, go to it, so long as it is in keeping with the supreme law of the land, that being the Constitution, and so long as it fully comports with the laws of your State. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution!

Supreme Court Infidelity IS The Problem

Now that Justice Kennedy, the "swing voter" on the court (meaning the Justice who at least SOMETIMES understands and applies original meaning), has opted to retire (no more irresponsible appointments like Sotomayor or Ginsberg, please) perhaps the number of deeply troubling 5-4 decisions by the Supreme Court will, more appropriately, be less narrow. More to the point, with the addition of judges to the bench who are more faithful to the Constitution--a tall order finding such an endangered species these days--perhaps SCOTUS decisions in the future will more appropriately and faithfully reflect the actual meaning of the Constitution--and not the individual Justices' social engineering and big government predilections.

Over the years, and as we are all at least viscerally aware, SCOTUS and the lower federal courts have managed to COMPLETELY mangle and misrepresent our Founders' clear meaning and intent. That is unacceptable and MUST be remedied.

Compounding the damage wrought by faithless federal judges is the flawed doctrine of "stare decisis" which dominates modern legal thinking. This erosive doctrine serves only to exacerbate the courts' impeccable faithlessness to the Constitution by enshrining flawed case law atop previously flawed case law--a dangerous practice, indeed. This practice merely serves to further distance the Justices and the American people from the Constitution. In short, this doctrine and the Justices' subjectivity and faithlessness are antithetical to their sacred Art III duty to accurately and studiously interpret the Constitution. As a result of all this revisionism and faithlessness, the federal courts have, with impunity, brazenly and ruinously usurped both State and Individual authority and rights and have firmly placed our republic on the road to authoritarianism. In truth, and in the face of this judicial recklessness, the only thing holding the country together in this post-constitutional period is the American people's lingering and illusory belief that we are still a constitutional republic of Laws and Justice. Not very reassuring, is it.

Of the three federal branches--and as Thomas Jefferson warned long ago--the Supreme Court, arbitrary and capricious to its core, has evolved into the most faithless and oppressive. Since the 19th century, most Justices have increasingly and incrementally taken on the wholly alien roles of infallible and essentially deified Delphic Oracles, an incongruent role which has blinded us to the reality that Justices are but fallible mortals whose actions are too often dictated by personal whim and ideological bias . And in a constitutional republic, such a threatening level of infidelity is the kiss of death.

When we consider how best to fix the myriad foundational problems facing this republic, we'd best get beyond wasting our efforts clashing with the symptoms which, of course, are plentiful. The biggest root source of tyranny today really is the faithless Supreme Court and our subversive education system, the latter which creates millions of citizens who are dangerously ignorant of our founding principles and deferential to Supreme Court infidelity. Not because we value infidelity, but because most of us have never even read the Constitution or other founding documents. As Thomas Jefferson counseled, "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

Ultimately, therefore, We the People, inarguably the final arbiters in any legitimate constitutional republic, are responsible for ensuring that the Supreme Court and all other branches of the federal government, our servants, uphold their oath of office and consistent faithfulness to the Constitution, failing which I refer you to the Declaration of Independence for your serious consideration.

The Clock is Ticking for Deep Staters

It appears that it's all finally and mercifully coming to a head. At least I hope I'm not misreading the situation. 

Quite out of character for a painfully long time now, the House GOP surprised us today by actually demonstrating some genuine spine. By a 226-183 vote, the House passed a resolution, non-binding but most certainly a well-aimed shot across the bow, justifiably and indignantly demanding that the lawless DOJ turn over all documents requested by Congress. Finally, Rosenstein, poster boy for DC elitism and insufferable hubris, and one of the deep state's special darlings, is under direct fire, and he's not handling it well at all. A thief and scoundrel gets testy when exposed, and Rosenstein is no exception to that rule. He's been exposed for the liar and subversive he is, and he is fully deserving of our contempt. 

In any event, it's so reassuring to see the hammer of justice finally being fearlessly wielded by erstwhile weak-kneed Republicans. But unless substantive sanctions accompany any contempt charges, impeachment proceedings must speedily proceed. It's well past time to take the gloves off, and the patriots in Congress seem to have finally understood that. Tactically, it may also be nearing the perfect time for the President to order the timely declassification and surrendering of all subpoenaed documents to either the White House for on-forwarding to Congress, or directly to the House Judiciary Committee, failing which his duty is crystal-clear: he must excise the debilitating cancer pervading the DOJ by terminating those irresponsible.

When one thinks about the maelstrom created by Russian interference in our political system, one should be duly impressed by Russia's effectiveness in this regard. But, don't forget. They didn't pull it off alone. With the active assistance of Demonrats and their deep state co-conspirators, Russia's subversive efforts to undermine our political system and to divide us have been nothing short of spectacularly successful! (Gotta' give credit where credit is due.) But in all this drama what we should never forget is the nefarious Demonrat-Russia alliance/collusion, without which the Russian effort would have been, at best, but a relatively minor and predictable aggravation. Many subversives, both here and abroad, richly deserve our full-throated condemnation. Stay tuned...

Even Liberal Experts Debunk Special Counsel Authority

When in doubt, defer to the Constitution, not to the politically-induced cacaphony out there which passes for wisdom and erudition. 

In short, Steven Calabresi, LIBERAL constitutional law professor at Northwestern University, asserts that per Art II's "appointments clause" a special counsel must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, failing which all of Mueller's actions are null and void, inclusive of all indictments, searches and plea agreements. (Where was Calabresi and others of his ilk when Congress fashioned the ill-begotten special counsel regulations?) In this regard, Calabresi recommends that Flynn and Manafort, among other victims of this witch hunt, challenge the constitutionality of any charges lodged against them by Mueller. (Of course, these victims would need to rely upon judges who may not be as faithful to the Constitution. But the effort is worth taking, I'd say, particularly since the Supreme Court is decidedly more conservative these days.)

Calabresi also points out that Rosenstein's appointment of Mueller ignored 28 CFR 600-1 - 600-10 which stipulates that, among other requirements, a special counsel may be appointed if "a criminal investigation..is warranted". However, Mueller's appointment referred NOT to a criminal matter, but to a counter-intelligence investigation.

And so it goes. When even liberal constitutional experts seriously question the legitimacy of Mueller's appointment, we must all take notice. 

Is Cornered, Impoverished N.Korea Suicidal?

With an anemic $1B GDP--comparable to that of Cleveland--N. Korea's impoverished economy is simply unable to absorb travel and hotel expenses associated with the Trump-KJU summit in Singapore on June 12th. (Any wonder NOKO people are subsisting on grass soup and inedible promises of a nuclear arsenal?) Proof positive that draconian US-backed sanctions against NOKO are working. Proof also that Trump has the upperhand in these "negotiations". I believe negotiators call that "leverage".

The NOKO rat is cornered, and it appears that not even China is able--or, more importantly, willing--to bail him out. If NOKO fails to demonstrably denuclearize, the US will have made a manifestly good faith effort to reach an acceptable agreement, failing which KJU and his leftist supporters in the US will have precipitated the "fire and fury" Trump has wisely pledged in the absence of an acceptable agreement.

Can America Survive Itself?

To me, this illustration says it all. The ideological divide afflicting America is now chasmic, possibly unbridgeable. At war with itself, the country is truly at a socio-political crossroads. Which ideology will prevail in the end? Marxist/Progressive tyranny or our founding constitutional principles? I honestly don't know how to answer this question, and the fact that I can't answer this question is very, very troubling.

Johnny Come Lately Again

After many years of applauding Obama's feckless policy of "strategic patience", the shameless Demonrat amnesiacs are suddenly toughening their stance against N. Korea. 

With respect to the upcoming NOKO-Trump summit--and revealing a dramatic shift in their long-standing policy of appeasing America's enemies--the Demonrat "leaders" in the Senate have signed a letter warning Trump to adhere to these five rigidly pro-American demands:

1. The deal must include the dismantlement and removal of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North Korea.
2. The U.S. must ensure a “complete and verifiable denuclearization of North Korea,” removing all items related to nuclear-weapons production to prevent the country from reversing course.
3. North Korea must end its ballistic-missile program as well.
4. North Korea must comply with “anywhere, anytime” inspections to ensure it is not cheating on the deal, and sanctions must be immediately restored if it does cheat.
5. The deal must be permanent.

Gee. When did the Demonrats suddenly find a more principled and tougher pro-American foreign policy stance? When Trump became President. That's when. (Pity their new-found realism didn't apply to Iran as well.) 

For Demonrats, it's ALWAYS about politics and NEVER EVER about national security. That said, it's not surprising that their "five demands" mirror that of Trump's. (Nothing changes with the Progressive playbook: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em and hope for their failure. Same ol' tired Demonrat political gamesmanship--fair weather patriots at best, quislings at worst.)

Springfield Armory Severs Ties with "Dick's Sporting Goods" Anti-Gunners

The venerable Springfield Armory, a gun and ammo manufacturer created in 1777 by none other than George Washington to prosecute the Revolutionary War, has severed ties with Dick's Sporting Goods (appropriately named) and its subsidiary, Field & Stream (not to be confused with the magazine), after Dick's removed and destroyed its rifle inventory, denied anyone under 21 the ability to purchase a weapon, and hired three lobbyists to press Congress to abridge Americans' 2nd Amendment rights. The list of subversive liberal businesses with whom I will never again do business is growing. Two can play this game. And guess who will be hurt more?

Mexico Defies Int'l Protocols: Aids & Abets Illegal Alien Invasion of USA

The internationally-accepted DEFINITION OF REFUGEE/ASYLEE: refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion and are, therefore, fearful of returning to their country of origin. (Note: Economic reasons are NEVER grounds for granting refugee/asylee status. Also, if asylum is being pursued, such a claim must be reviewed, granted or denied by the FIRST country into which the prospective asylee flees.)

Clearly, Mexico hasn't reviewed, granted or denied asylee status to the migrants currently transiting Mexican territory enroute to the US southern border. In accordance with current international protocols, Mexico is required to have done so, and if these central American itinerants met the requirements of an asylee, then Mexico must have granted them asylee status and resettlement in Mexico. If asylee status was denied, then Mexico must have deported them to their country of origin. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work.

Regarding the CARAVAN of gate-crashers being permitted by Mexico to navigate unencumbered through Mexican territory to the US border, per Art IV Sec 4 of the US Constitution, the federal gov't is duty-bound to "protect [States] from invasion", failing which the States are duty-bound to mobilize their own State Self-Defense Forces to repel such brazen incursions.

If Mexico fails to stop the transit of this and other such caravans/flows of purported "asylees" to America's southern border, then at the very least, the US should recall its ambassador from Mexico "for consultations". And should that diplomatic shot across the bow be ignored by Mexico, then the gloves must come off: withdraw our ambassador, lodge a formal complaint with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, impose economic sanctions, and both mobilize and deploy federal militias along the border. No more pussy-footing. Americans expect firm, credible action to stop such invasions of our sovereignty. And, guess what? We don't need a damn wall to protect our borders. We need but the political will to do so.

Is a Convention of States Really the Way to Go?

Regarding the much-touted rationale for an Article V Convention of States, if amending the Constitution will compel our representatives to obey it, then doesn't it logically follow that since few obey the 10 Commandments we should amend the Commandments as well? Just sayin'... The point is that compliance with the Constitution can only occur when the People and their representatives insist upon the Constitution's rigorous enforcement. It doesn't need to be rewritten; it needs to be enforced.

California's Opposition to Census Citizenship Question a Scam

Shameful. On the Left, the usual lying, parsing and double-talk have already taken hold of the census question "Are you a US Citizen?" Like I've often counseled, when constitutional issues/questions arise, consult--what else--the Constitution. So much easier that way.

In a nutshell for the brain dead obfuscators out there, here it is:

Art I Sec 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution calls for the "enumeration of the people" (except Indians) every 10 years in order to properly apportion direct taxation and representation, the ratio of reps to population today which is, roughly, 1 rep for every 800,000 citizens.

In Federalist #16, framer/founder Alexander Hamilton defined those persons enumerated, aka counted, would be "the natural guardians of the Constitution", that being We the People, the citizens of the US, who created the federal gov't and Constitution, and in whom is entrusted the duty of safeguarding that Constitution. (Notes: 1. Clearly, illegal aliens,, temporary residents, visa holders and resident aliens cannot be described as "the natural guardians of the Constitution"; 2. The Constitutional Convention eliminated this citizens-only rule by including 3/5 of slaves in the enumeration, a compromise crafted by the framers to entice the southern States to ratify the Constitution and to accede to union with the other States. 3. Per the 14th Amendment in 1868, also included as "guardians" were Indians who were paying taxes and expressed a desire to vote. 4. And in 1924, all Indians were included in the enumeration as citizens; 5. Very important to understand that "inhabitant", "qualified person" and "US Citizen" are interchangeable terms in Art I Sec 2 Clause 2 and Art I Sec 3 Clause 3 when defining the qualifications for national elective office.)

Any argument to the contrary is N-O-I-S-E.

EASY FIX: DITCH THE IDEOLOGICAL PALAVER AND SAFEGUARD OUR SCHOOLS

LISTENING TO THE CACAPHONY over school safety, I've noticed that the current debate boils down to Gun Control a la Australia (Democrats) vs School Safety a la Israel (Republicans). One side wants the number of guns in the country severely curtailed--even entirely eliminated. The other side wants to safeguard Americans' natural and constitutional right to bear arms while relying on the 2nd Amendment to effectively defend our children in schools.

And this: Raising the age to own a gun from 18 to 21 still strikes me as empty-headed pandering. Though it may be politically expedient, I believe all rational folks understand that it will solve nothing. (Look at the age of other shooters over the past 10 years. Well over 18 OR 21. Thus, there is no magic age at which the possibility of madness is altogether eliminated.) 

Also, and as I mentioned in a post below, setting age limitations on gun ownership is the Constitutional province of the States. (Yes, the Constitution needn't be cavalierly violated to achieve school safety--especially when such a violation is completely unnecessary; thus, I'm relieved to read that President Trump will defer to the States in this regard. Good for him.) I would warn Trump against overreaching his executive authority in gun control matters, but, to reasonably placate those who FEEL age is a key factor when projecting possible gun violence, I would ask him to urge Governors and State AGs at the President's upcoming confab with them to follow Florida's example: to own a semi-auto rifle, one must be 21. But, again, that should be properly left to the States. 

Also, to ensure the safety of our schools, which should be our primary, overriding concern, sufficient armed personnel must be deployed full time at each school. A mix of willing and well-trained teachers and armed resource personnel would provide the defensive depth needed to properly deter and effectively react to a shooter. More thorough background checks and timely input of data into the national and State registries, more vigorous, proactive local engagement and mental health intervention and adequately armed and trained personnel at every school is the answer. No brainer.

**School safety is solvable. It's an easy fix, folks. But the Left would have you believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is the ONLY acceptable solution. Poppycock. They clearly appear to care more about advancing their totalitarian political agenda to disarm Americans than in protecting our kids. 

NO! To a Constitutional Convention of States

OMG. Though I am sure he's well-intentioned, I'm very disappointed that Hannity now so strongly supports a Convention of States effort to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Re-written by whom? All those stellar, sober statesmen and clear-thinking constitutional scholars out here? And just who might those stellar paragons of faithful constitutional construction be? (Mark Levin, who assails and negates the 10th Amendment? I don't think so.)

The Constitution doesn't need to be re-written; it needs to be ENFORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The remedies for enforcement are already there: We the People (organized resistance, push-back), invoking the 9th & 10th amendments against federal usurpations, a carefully applied traditional amendment process outlined in Art V.

Permitting well-intentioned but unproven folks to re-write the Constitution to "improve it" is akin to risking burning down the forest to protect it. Doing so fundamentally violates our founders' warning against such a sweeping and fundamentally careless action.

ENFORCE, DON'T REWRITE. OUR CONSTITUTION IS ONLY AS GOOD AS OUR WILLINGNESS TO ENFORCE IT. UNLESS ADHERED TO AND STRICTLY ENFORCED, THE CONSTITUTION, AMENDED OR OTHERWISE, IS BUT A STREAM OF WELL-MEANING WORDS. IN SHORT, an amended Constitution can be just as easily violated as an un-amended Constitution. And the risk we run of placing the awesome responsibility of re-writing our well-tested, sacrosanct Constitution upon those for whom we have little faith or knowledge regarding underlying biases and motivations should cause us serious, sobering heartburn. Organize to Enforce the Constitution. Don't risk it's be re-written. IF we go that route, we may be deeply disappointed by the finished product. Re-writing doesn't fix the problem. It could very well exacerbate the problem. Don'[t mess with a good thing. The Constitution isn't failing us. WE are failing the Constitution.