Confederate States of America, a Beacon 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 out-gunned and terribly out-numbered.

WHAT VOTER FRAUD?

The Socialist Democrat Party has been assuring us for years that there is no voter fraud, or so utterly minor in frequency as to have no significant affect on election outcomes. They tell us no need for voter ID to vote because minorities are too stupid, too indigent, too immobile, too oppressed, too something or another to obtain an ID to vote. Of course, these same minorities the SDs so patronizingly and arrogantly denigrate are able to obtain ID for purchasing firearms, whiskey, airline tickets, etc. etc. etc. But, God forbid (meant to be painfully offensive to my Lefty 'friends') that these downtrodden, disabled minorities be asked to present proof of their citizenship to vote in an American election. After all, the requirement to show ID to vote constitutes "voter suppression", right? Oh, the horror! The temerity! The unmitigated gall! By the way, one's knowingly voting when one knows s/he is not qualified to vote is a second-degree FELONY. Glad to see Texas at least is enforcing the law. Trump tried to clean this up around the country, but his clean-up effort was effectively rebuffed by some States and every Socialist Democrat infecting this nation. And so it goes....

ALBANY CELEBRATES DEATH OF INNOCENTS

Congratulations, New Yorkers. YOU and YOUR representatives have permitted the slaughter of unborn innocents up to the moment of birth, and that's just peachy keen with you. But to most of you the wall is somehow immoral??? Cognitive dissonance on steroids? It would appear that cerebral rectal inversions is a veritable plague in the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of NY. Up is down, right is wrong, murder of the unborn is to be celebrated. You folks are twisted, depraved and sick.

YES, THE PRESIDENT MAY LAWFULLY DECLARE NATIONAL EMERGENCY

After listening to Judge Napolitano's highly dubious explanation this morning on FOX as to why Trump can't cobble together already allocated federal funds to pay for the wall, a few points: 1) As I noted in my previous post, the Constitution authorizes his declaring an emergency and taking appropriate action to defend the US, and to do so would, of course, require emergency funding; 2) the Emergency Declaration Act (1976) pretty much says the same thing, but with a condition, that being that a joint resolution of Congress via simple majority vote in each chamber and the President's signature on that bill is sufficient to nullify the emergency declaration. (However, if the President vetoes the bill, much more than likely, a 2/3 vote in each chamber would be required to override his veto, highly unlikely); 3) the general legal opinion is that Trump can cobble together already allocated federal funds for diversion to wall construction; 4) Since the emergency is of a military, national defense nature, it is generally understood that he could direct the military to either construct the wall or to deploy as many troops and military assets to the border as needed to address the border emergency. And from my perspective, the latter can be done with or without judicial blessings.

Read this post from VOX.com. Obviously, as in all things political and legal and somewhere in between, there is a divergence of opinion among legal eagles on various aspects of this issue, but, on balance, from all I've read and researched I can't imagine the Commander-in-Chief would be violating his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the United States by declaring an emergency and taking lawful actions to resolve the matter. Of course, "living constitution", anti-American leftist jurists will differ. Such subversion and faithlessness in that arena is to be expected.

Lastly, declaring an emergency takes the wind out of the Demonrats' failed zero sum negotiating position. Yes, the gov't would likely be re-opened, but the deceitful Demonrat leadership will have to explain to the People why they've done nothing to alleviate the border crisis--especially if and when Trump actually deploys a huge number of troops and assets to the southern border. I'm talkin at least 20,000+ troops.

How I loathe party-first, me-first, the-country-be-damned Progressive subversives. Unwary Democrat voters best awaken to the threat their blind loyalty to their Leninist leaders pose to themselves and the country.

About this website

VOX.COM

How Trump could use a national emergency to get his border wall, explained

"He has broad leeway to declare an emergency, frankly, whether one exists or not."

HITLER: A WARNING TO THE MYOPIC AMERICAN LEFT

 been reduced to a horde of mindless, compliant automatons. (Lesson learned: no man is above submission and self-destruction. That includes Americans as well.) Through incessant deception and outright lies, Hitler, a darling of the Left, won over a majority and ended up utterly destroying the useful idiots who enabled his rise to power, but also millions of innocent lives and Germany itself. So tragic the American Left is unwilling or otherwise indisposed to understanding the awful lessons of Nazism, Fascism and Communism--each a Leftist phenomenon. History really does repeat itself, and we need to expect this and courageously prepare for it. Historically, the Left's single-minded pursuit of political power always overwhelms reason, common sense and comity. It always ends in terrible conflict and self-destruction. So, to the useful idiots and myopic power mongers among us, wake up. Avoid the inevitable catastrophe you are foolishly cultivating.

KAMALA HARRIS & THE 2020 DEMOCRAT SIDESHOW TO COME

Gee! Am just flush with goose bumps and aflutter with barely contained excitement. Another big government, opportunistic, anti-American Progressive, a notoriously divisive practitioner of identity politics, double-talk, and self-consumption has thrown her hat in the 2020 presidential ring.

She is none other than the tenacious, me-first entitled Queen of Snide, Slick, Arrogance and Mean herself, the inimitable (thank God) Sen. Kamala Harris of the People's Democrat Socialist Republic of California, arguably among the most offensive politicians I have yet endured. (And she just might be among the "best" candidates the Left can dredge from its bowels this go-round. I know. No accounting for taste and sound judgement anymore, huh?)

But, you gotta' hand it to Kamala. She's tenacious, well-spoken--even if it is obfuscatory and cynically self-serving-- thoroughly endowed with a self-driven sense of entitlement, and, for all practical purposes, a perfect model for the thuggish subversive Left to celebrate and anoint. And for that less than stellar character profile, I am confident she'll garner plenty of electoral support from among indoctrinated Demonrat voters and similarly afflicted useful idiots. She is, after all, respectably intelligent and a practiced spinmeister of exceptional skill. Like so many of her Progressive co-contenders, she's just sorely lacking in character and principle, and is unabashedly faithless to America's first principles, rendering her a perfect fit on the left. But, in fairness, does character, principle and adherence to decency, honor and the US Constitution today have any real weight or influence at all on the Left--or, indeed, in some Progressive pockets on the Right as well? Of course not. So, therefore, she does have a better than even chance of capturing the prize, as disturbing a prospect as that may be to many of us who still value principle, patriotism and personal integrity.

The crucial question is, will Demonrat electoral support for Kamala or for her fellow contenders be enough to clinch primary selection. Frankly, I hope so. Why? They would each be silly puddy in Trump's tell-it-like-is, unrehearsed and convincingly pro-American hands. Trump would, I believe, quickly, indelicately, and convincingly provide a sober and painful contrast to the arrogant Kamalas, pro-terrorist Rashida Tlaibs, congenital spinmeister Swalwells, and socialist Bernie Sanders types which currently plague the fetid world of Democratic Progressivism/Socialism. And for that, I actually look forward to the parade of lunatics and other never-never-landers the Dims will most assuredly be foisting upon the American electorate in the coming months.

Regarding Kamala and Sanders types, this can be said with certainty: they can't be any less attractive or less genuinely American than the insipid PC Starbucks CEO who has also opted to run. (My God!) Sadly, we can expect to be feted with what will most likely be the most remarkably offensive and clownish parade of reckless kooks, brigands, adolescent social justice types and subversives in the annals of American history. That's really how far we've strayed from our standards of decency and Constitutional moorings. I can only hope we can maintain our humor throughout that trauma.

I can't imagine that any of us can honestly refute that the Modern Democrat Party has manifestly transformed itself into an authoritarian, big-government, socialist party, quite beholding to itself and not to the republic. And despite our best and noblest efforts, I don't think we can ever really change that, only stop it or ameliorate its toxic effects. In short, JFK's Democrat Party no longer mirrors America's first principles or its sacred traditions, neither on the social or political planes. And, sadly, we can expect no better of that party today. Objectively, we can no longer rely upon a loyal American opposition in DC to safeguard our personal liberties and the fruits of free enterprise, the bedrock foundations of what were once the fountains of our pride and hope in the future. The questions persist, have enough of us honestly and intelligently recognized and resisted this internal transformation? Have too many of us been duped or, just as perilously, fallen in lockstep, this to go-along-to-get-along? Frankly, we won't know until we see who is residing in the White House in January 2021.

Finally, remember the barrage of deprecating MSM commentary regarding the 15 or so GOP primary candidates running in 2016? Fifteen-seventeen candidates ain't nothin' anymore, or so it appears. The avaricious Demonrats are expected to field something closer to 25 me-first, the Constitution-be-damned leftist ideologues and, by logical extension, barely cogent, credible candidates, each bought and paid for by the hedge-betting titans on Wall Street and each propelled by his or her own pathological need for political power--not the survival of our republic or of our increasingly irrelevant Constitution. It will be quite the unsettling sideshow, and the outcome of the 2020 elections will clearly gauge this country's faithfulness to our founding principles as well as our direction as a country in the future. I await with baited breath, but with a healthy regard for realism and the need for appropriate contingency planning.

MARXIST PC THE GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA

We don't have a misogyny, homophobia or race problem in the USA. What we do have is a pernicious and relentless Marxist - driven PC effort to undermine our values and traditions, hobble our ability to critically think, destroy our system of constitutional government, and transform us into submissive drones tolerant of and dependent upon a ruling class devoted solely to ensuring it's political and economic domination. Our best defense: remain unbowed and engaged, and rigidly resist Marxist propaganda and subversion.

SECESSION: A SOLUTION FOR RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

As I contemplate the Socialist Democrat onslaught on our liberties, it occurs to me that ONLY if patriots are organized and are not inclined to be "summertime patriots" when the rubber hits the road can we hope to restore constitutional order on any level of government, either State or national. That said, there are other alternatives, perhaps more efficacious and less daunting, the principal alternative being secession. (And no, secession need not entail bloodshed or needless national turmoil. The bloodletting and awful destruction attending secession in 1861 was entirely preventable and intolerably wrong. I think we learned that lesson. In short, the social, et. al. conditions which prevailed in 1861 do not exist today. Thus, to secede today only requires the unshakISable will of a State's citizenry fervently committed to restoring constitutional order in their State.)

For a time, I believed that State nullification was the best recourse to stem the tide of Federal corruption and overreach. I am no longer as convinced of that. Why? Because most State capitals have morphed into vassalized, ineffectual pawns and replicas of Leviathan, the very entity the States should have been checkmating all along. SO, if not the federal or State governments or We the People in the aggregate, then what sovereign governing entity remains to restore constitutional order, though, perhaps, on a more limited territorial basis? The citizens of the individual States, of course.

Since our chances of restoring order on a national level and in many States is most certainly wishful thinking, then a majority of citizens in individual States who are firmly committed to adhering to first principles as their foundation of government, is the obvious solution.

Providence and the founders provided us many remedies to tyranny. Whichever remedy works best is the remedy to be pursued. No need to feel cornered or helpless if we are organized, principled and committed. We must be mindful of our natural rights and of both the Constitution and of our Declaration of Independence. Those documents are more relevant today than ever before in our history.

Our Founders would tell us the People are the "final arbiters". And since restoring constitutional governance--as envisioned by our founders and adopted by the original 13 States--on a national level today is likely a pipe dream, the remedy or "fix" is in the hands of the citizens of the several States. Thus, I would counsel against civil war and revolution. Unnecessarily and avoidably turbulent and destructive. The most sensible and manageableable course of action to restore constitutional order may well be peaceful secession which might induce other States to follow suit. Such a ground swell might even eventually cascade into an uplifting national transformation. Point is our irreparably shattered constitutional government cannot be restored to full health without this intervening State-level action. Of this I am convinced. And, obviously, secession can only occur in a State where such an action is fully embraced by a majority of citizens in that State.

Something to ponder.

Trump Caves

Yes, Trump caved. But, politically and practically, he really had no choice. To honor his constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to defend the country, he was duty bound to provide paychecks to those encharged with our defense, that being the Border Patrol and Coast Guard. In short, his constitutional responsibilities eclipsed his urgent need for funds to construct "the wall", a longer term effort. (Well, until February when the CR expires, that is.) Trump is taking the high road while intransigent, sputtering San Fran Nan myopically gloats like a clueless tween. Cleverly and importantly, Trump demonstrated to his detractors his ability to gracefully rise above the fray and to do what had to be done. Of course, he knows that self-consumed Pelosi, glorying in her pyrrhic victory today, will remain intransigent, and that the likelihood of a good-faith effort on her part to fashion a sensible and meaningful deal with Trump over the wall before yet another shutdown in February is, at best, remote. But, having shown his good-faith and compassion, if she again arrogantly nixes his funding request, he will necessarily go the nat'l emergency/Army Corps of Engineers route-- AND keep the gov't open as well. (Thank you, Mr. Trump. A win-win, I'd say.) And the House Hag will have lost what tiny bit of credibility she has left. The wall will be built, folks. Count on it. And over the next two awful years, we can expect more shutdowns and relentless gridlock. With the thugs and subversives in charge of the House, we really can't expect anything more. And with the Pelosi hordes in charge there, gridlock sounds pretty attractive to me

CATHOLIC ABORTIONISTS TOLERATED BY CHURCH LEADERS

So, among other CINOs (Catholic in Name Only), why hasn't the Catholic Church denied Cuomo (the nation's preeminent abortionist) communion or excommunicated him? Aside from the obvious, that being that the well-healed and elite tend to routinely overlook each others sins, but assuming for a moment that this view is in error, my burning question remains. WHY?

A conscientious Christian should properly question why Cuomo has not been properly disciplined and denied Holy Communion by Albany Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, or by New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan. And while we may not like the well-spun answer we get, my question remains of critical importance.

Surely Bishop Scharfenberger is aware of the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law, Code 915: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

Or could it be that even some Christian leaders are falling under the spell of Marxism. Years of Progressive PC and related indoctrination may have taken a larger toll than we had ever thought possible. Take our health care, our education, our guns, but once they've subverted our religious tenets we are virtually finished, reduced to insentient and obedient drones. It would appear that the Socialist Democrats are no longer merely pushing the envelope; they are now ruthlessly shoving the envelope down our collective throats. Welcome to Dystopia.

KHRUSCHEV A PROPHET?

“For us in Russia, communism is a dead dog, while for many people in the West, it is still a living lion.” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winning Russian novelist and historian).

Well, of this we can all be certain. With the nurturing of this country's Socialist Democrat Party, Marxism is definitely on the rise in America. The ol' Communist murderers and dictators in Hell must be laughing their collective butts off. Today, Khruschev's 50's warning that Communism will bury the USA seems more than an idle threat. The lingering question is, what will we do substantively to stop our transformation and collapse?

INELIGIBILITY ISSUE: Shoot the Messenger and Do the Research Yourself

SO VERY TEDIOUS. INELIGIBILITY DENIERS ARE ALREADY CASTIGATING THOSE OF US WHO UNDERSTAND THAT OBAMA, CRUZ, RUBIO AND NOW KAMALA HARRIS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OR VP. Honestly, folks, it's not rocket science. When I read this maddening article and caught the scent of arrogant dismissiveness and disregard for original meaning, I left these brief comments with the likely foolish hope that at least one of these purveyors of misinformation would honestly and objectively research the matter a little. Anyway, my brief comments, for whatever good they do to anyone:

"It's incredible and deeply frustrating how misinformed folks are about the real meaning of natural born citizen and citizen. HUGE constitutional difference. A modicum of serious research on line would be both enlightening and liberating. For starters, check out federalistblog, then Publius Huldah blog. So much solid evidence that Obama, Rubio, Cruz and, yes, super elitist Kamala are, hands down, ineligible. The Constitution cannot defend itself; that is up to us. But, today who the hell cares about that dusty, inconvenient parchment, huh? Obviously, not many at all..."

'“(A)ll 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."' Sadly, the ineligibility deniers will cavalierly and dishonestly blow this off too. Truth interferes with their preconceived viewpoints. And so goes a once venerable and genuine constitutional republic. Maddening."

"If any alien/visitor drops by the US and is somehow adjudged to be 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', then all American travelers abroad are similarly and completely subject to the jurisdiction of those governments as well. As such, there would be no need for American Embassies to protect them. Sojourners are, of course, required to follow the laws of the countries they visit/pass through, but in no way are they subject to that country's jurisdiction or otherwise afforded those protections reserved to legal residents and citizens. If you want to break new ground and jettison the academic flavor of the month, then read the words of Sens. Trumbell, Howard, and Bingham regarding citizenship, natural born citizenship and the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". These are the guys who wrote the 14th amendment. Can't get more authoritative than that, huh? But, who cares, right? Our own personal agendas and frivolous preconceived viewpoints are far more important."

About this website

WESTERNJOURNAL.COM|BY BENJAMIN ARIE

Kamala Harris Shouldn't Be President, But Not Because She Isn't 'Eligible'

Some on the right are questioning Harris' constitutional ability to run for president, but the evidence says she's in the clear ... but still bad for America.