Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) Warns of Civil War

Earlier today on the Senate floor, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) assailed those attempting to defund Obamacare with these lofty and inspirational words:  "It's dangerous. It's very dangerous. I believe, Mr. President, we are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now. Every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War."

Aside from exposing his woeful ignorance of history--it wasn't a "civil war" by any academic stretch--he may have unwittingly probed the truth. In fact, we ARE, since Obama's election,  at "one of the most dangerous points in our history". But, it certainly isn't because the Conservatives or the Tea Partiers are irrationally pressing to repeal, defund or delay the Obamacare  horror. It is precisely because the Progressives are hellbent to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" into another failed utopian state.

Like it or not, Harkin and his verminous Progressive co-conspirators are totally responsible for the historic spike in State nullification actions around the country, to say nothing of the burgeoning secessionist sentiment now sweeping this once venerable union of States. Were we a Republic ideologically at peace with ourselves, this turmoil wouldn't be happening. Sadly, however, we are in the throes of a sinister and probably irremediable ideological struggle whose outcome, while still uncertain, is probably pre-ordained.

What Comrade Harkin and his Progressive apparatchiks are disinclined to appreciate is that not all Americans--especially those who are still alive, breathing and thinking--have any intention of going down with a sinking ship. Only suicidal and feckless ideologues of the neo-Marxist genre are willing to blindly follow that self-destructive path.

Over the years, we've been spoon-fed a lot of crap and drivel about secession and nullification--what it is and what it isn't; whether or not it is treasonous or legal. The short of it is that when all else fails to check tyranny both remedies are constitutional--no less so than rebellion and civil disobedience.

History and the wisdom of our Founders clearly demonstrate that  neither nullification nor secession is treasonous--unless, of course, you are one of the country's ruling elites today who disdainfully view the Constitution as a pesky document to be circumvented and violated if such actions advance one's self-serving ideological agenda and unquenchable thirst for power.

As I substantively explained in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", secession is absolutely, irrefutably, incontrovertibly constitutional and, therefore, lawful. Successful force of arms alone doesn't extinguish the unalienable rights of the People subjugated or the reserved powers of the States. (Note: there's a good reason why Confederate leaders weren't hauled into court for treason following the North's costly victory over the South. The North didn't want to lose in court what it thought it had won on the battlefield.)

Always remember that the union is based upon a contract between the sovereign States and the federal government, the former which created the latter. As in all contracts, if either party to that contract violates the terms of that contract (think Constitution), then the contract is null and void. Simple contract law. More precisely, those powers, stated or unstated, not specifically granted by the States to the federal government are, by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, solely vested in the States and/or the People. And nowhere in the Constitution or in our founding documents are secession and nullification prohibited or subject to federal review or sanction. (It is important to note that three States--look it up--conditioned their ratification of the Constitution upon their reserved right to secede if the federal government usurped undelegated powers, or if the contract no longer adequately served the sovereign interests of the States.)

Though over the years the States have been lulled into a condition of servility by obscenely huge unconstitutional federal giveaways, the Constitution can be ignored, but it can't be bought off. As is, it remains the Supreme Law of the land, and only the People, the final arbiters, through their duly elected representatives can amend it.

So, again, Harkin was unwittingly more right than he was wrong. Where he erred was in conveying the dimwitted notion that the union's dissolution is the fault of Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Partiers who oppose Obamacare.

Going forward, we need to expunge the dangerous revisionism and misinformation which stigmatize or otherwise delegitimize secession and nullification. In these precarious times, let the Founders be our guide. We negate or otherwise ignore sacred constitutional remedies at our own peril.

Latte? Thanks, But No Thanks.

In recent interviews and statements, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has made it clear that armed patrons are not welcome.

Unlike Peet's Coffee & Tea and Whole Foods, Schultz isn't refusing service to armed patrons, but in deference to those brainwashed unarmed patrons who might be intimidated by the appearance of firearms in their midst, Schultz asserts that he "prefers" that armed patrons not seek service at Starbucks establishments.

Ok. On the surface, this seems harmless enough. Right?
Well, not really.

No matter how one cuts, dices or spins it, what this gratuitous and discriminatory policy really means is that at Starbucks establishments law-abiding folks with licensed firearms are, in effect, persona non grata. Oh, they'll serve you okay. But, you're really not welcome. You're a gun-toter. Ouch.

Obviously, this policy exposes Starbuck's opinion regarding the sanctity of our 2nd Amendment constitutional rights. To all but the mentally impaired, Schultz's message is abundantly clear: while Starbucks won't refuse service to you, armed persons are a no-no, a threat, fearsome, and something to be stigmatized.

For me, the nub of the issue is this: abetted by a cynical and seductive Progressive policy to eliminate Americans' right to keep and bear arms, an odious anti-gun mindset is now gripping our country. And by its action, Starbucks is effectively buying into this insidious one-step-at-a-time Progressive goal of disarming Americans. Thus, in good conscience I cannot--will not--patronize Starbucks, for by doing so I too would be endorsing and encouraging this destructive anti-gun mindset.

Obama: "I Didn't Set a Red Line."

First Nancy Pelosi  at a press conference yesterday,  and  now Obama at a press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister today have shamelessly denied Obama’s setting a red line on Syrian use of chemical weapons.  Stunning in its lack of veracity, but entirely in character, clearly this guy and his Progressive minions cannot be trusted.

Today, the party's talking point is that the red line wasn’t Obama’s red line, it was “humanity’s” redline and the “world’s”  red line respectively. Well, at least he didn’t blame Bush or the Republicans—yet. If it weren’t so mendacious and embarrassing, it would be laughable. Like a spoiled, narcissistic child, this guy can’t take responsibility for anything he does wrong.  So much for principle and integrity. He possesses neither.

Terribly botched by our amateurish  Commander-in-Chief from the beginning, the  incompetence, mixed signals  and woeful lack of White House leadership nothwithstanding, on balance I still tend to support a better-late-then-never punitive and clearly defined military intervention in Syria designed to significantly degrade and deter Assad’s military assets, the underlying objective being to discourage like-minded violations by North Korea and Iran. Is it too late? I guess that remains to be seen.

Tragically, however, the Administration's having stupidly telegraphed our intended plan of attack, Syria is now rapidly shifting target locations and protecting them with human shields, an action which will surely result in otherwise avoidable collateral damage while minimizing our attack’s effectiveness.

What a terrible and entirely avoidable mess this feckless, unprincipled so-called President has perpetrated on the United States and a Free World still stunned by his embarrassing ineptitude and dishonesty.

Always the self-serving cynical politician with a penchant for blaming others, Obama is now asking Congress for authorization to act. But, adding to the endless muddle, in the same breath he asserts that if Congress votes against action, he will unilaterally take action anyway. Huh?

Anyone who trusts this guy's stability, maturity or integrity must be brain-dead.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a clear-headed grown-up--a statesman--in the White House again? Perhaps it would be much better for us all were he to remain on the golf course.

POSTSCRIPT: Looks like I spoke too soon. During a recent O'Reilly Factor interview, liberal operative James Carville blamed "Bush's mismanagement of the Iraq invasion" for Americans' anxiety over Syria. Yup. It's Bush's fault. Ya' just can't make this stuff up, folks. The shameless, unprincipled liberal blame game is relentless.

Book-Signing Schedule

As some of you may know, I finally published "A Patriot's Call to Action". It is now available at Barnes & Noble and Amazon. (However, it can be more cheaply purchased by calling my publisher, Xlibris, at 888-795-4274 ext. 7879.)

Highlighting key constitutional concepts in brief and readable form, it is a compendium of some of my blog posts which, I hope, will help readers to more easily square what our political leaders say, promise and do with what our Constitution actually permits. It exposes Progressive mendacity and  outlines a plan of action to restore constitutional order.

Currently, the following book-signings have been scheduled:

Rochester, NY

Saturday, August 17th (9AM - 1PM), Public Market, off E. Main St. near N. Goodman St.
Sunday, August 18th (9:30AM - 12:30PM), First Bible Baptist Church, 990 Manitou Rd
Sunday, August 25th (11:30 -  tbd ), Four Point Rod & Gun Club, Scottsville
Saturday, September 7th (2PM - 4PM), Alpha & Omega Book Store, 1540 Ridge Rd W
Sunday, September 15th (9:30AM - 12:30PM), First Bible Baptist Church, 990 Manitou Rd
Monday, September 16th (10AM - 1PM),  Elmgrove YMCA, Gates NY
Saturday, September 28th (10AM - tbd), Finger Lakes Freedom Festival, Trumansburg
Saturday, November 16th (Noon - 2PM), Alpha & Omega Book Store, Penfield Rd
November TBA (11/22-26?), Sam's Club, W. Ridge Rd. Greece, NY

Oneonta, NY (my other hometown)

Saturday, August 24th (2PM - 5PM), American Legion, 279 Chestnut Street

  

Hope to see you there!



Isn't it Time for an "American Spring"!!!

If the Egyptians can do it, why can't we? Well, we can. We need but the unwavering determination and the commitment to do so.

Because Morsi was democratically elected in no way permits him to dismantle the Egyptian Constitution and to impose Sharia law. One's being democratically elected does not confer special privileges or exempt one from the foundational laws of the land. Morsi lied to the electorate and the Egyptians quickly caught on and appropriately pushed back--spectacularly!

Sure, in the run-up to the election, many promises were made to ensure constitutional governance and a return to economic and political stability, but when it became apparent to the Egyptians they were lied to and did not get what they bargained for, they had every right--indeed, the duty--to remove Morsi. And with the help of a sympathetic military and, initially, with but a minimum of bloodshed and turmoil, that's precisely what the Egyptian electorate did. They are to be heartily congratulated!

In this regard, it occurs to me that there is a disturbing, if not unsurprising, similarity between Morsi and Obama. Lots of lofty rhetorical assurances of adherence to democratic and constitutional principles, but, once in power, their respective countries were allowed to descend into lawlessness, ideological transformation, corruption, incompetence, and mendacity.

So, why not an American Spring? Certainly makes more sense than a bloody revolution during which many innocents could be injured and killed. Like the Egyptian people, and intent upon reinstating representative and limited government, why don't millions of American patriots take to the streets throughout the country, at every Town Hall, every State Capitol, and, of course, DC?  (See postscript below.)

Imagine MILLIONS demonstrating on the Mall in DC with specific fundamental demands to IMMEDIATELY return to constitutional order, smaller government, vastly diminished bureaucracies (including the dismantling and defunding of any and all bureaucratic agencies not specifically authorized in the Constitution), a balanced budget within 3 years, and a return to economic stability and fiscal responsibility--and, of  immediate import, the resignation of Obama and Holder. And until credible and verifiable action IS taken by the politicians in DC to timely facilitate these demands, the demonstrations would remain in place.

Let's do it, folks. Let's restore the Republic, reduce the size of government in one fell swoop, restore the vitality of our free enterprise system, restore law and order and the sanctity of our Bill of Rights! Let's be proud "republican" Americans once again. Let's re-ignite that once shining light on the hill. Let's compel Congress, "the People's House", to take immediate action to restore the foundational principles of our founding fathers.

Only WE stand between constitutional governance and self-destruction. To turn the meaning of a now familiar phrase, WE THE PEOPLE are what we've been waiting for! Why wait any longer!?!?!?!?!?

Postscript: initially spearheaded by Gilberton PA Police Chief Kessler, what is hoped to be a massive march on DC is now being planned for September 9th. Law enforcement officers from around the country are planning to participate. Let's hope it puts Tahir Square to shame.

More on Ed Snowden: Spy or Hero?

For me, the whole Snowden saga is intensely interesting and fraught with many burning questions and monumentally serious concerns. So, please indulge me again. In truth, like a good book, this subject is well-nigh impossible to shelve.

In a recent interview with CNN, former CIA officer, Robert Baer, for whom I have great respect, opined that Edward Snowden was likely a spy for the People's Republic of China.

Well, like Mr. Baer, we're all entitled to our opinions. And, of course, the diligent among us must always consider all possibilities until the full, unadulterated truth is fully disclosed--if it ever is.

That said, having thrice listened to the Guardian's interview of Snowden and carefully observing his facial patterns & manner of expression, I could not detect the slightest telltale sign of  pretention or concealment. What I saw was a genuinely bright, very well-spoken, remarkably poised and, yes, lonely and beseiged American who thought he was doing the right thing for America, and was willing to take the hits for doing so. And until there is solid, incontrovertible proof to the contrary, I am compelled to adhere to that view. Not exactly scientific. But no less scientific than Mr. Baer's position.

Though I suspect both detractors/dissemblers and supporters alike are working on it, missing so far is a more comprehensive background analysis and objective psychological profile of Snowden, both of which would be helpful to those of us who have more than a passing interest in his motivations and in any proof of NSA's lawlessness. In any event, to date nothing in his background has suggested the makings of either a hero OR a spy. And had there been hints of either, one could logically deduce that the security clearance check he was subjected to by the US Government would have disclosed such dispositions.  One would hope so anyway.

Curious to me is Mr. Baer's opining that Snowden is likely a spy for the PRC because, I gather, Snowden opted to flee to Hong Kong. To me, that is a  rather foundationally flimsy deduction on Mr. Baer's part. Reportedly,  albeit unsuccessfully, on more than one occasion Mr Snowden brought the issue of NSA's highly questionable and likely unconstitutional actions to the attention of his superiors. And there's the nub of my disagreement with Mr. Baer's preliminary assessment: why would Snowden run the risk of exposing himself to his superiors as a "troublemaker" IF he were a spy? Makes little sense to me.

My bet is that Snowden fled to Hong Kong because 1) it was geographically closer to Hawaii than Iceland, and 2) the chances of PRC's extraditing him to the US was minimal to nil. On balance, and assuming he gave the matter of asylum at least a modicum of consideration before fleeing, HK is where I would have gone had I been in his shoes.

Mysterious and worrisome is the fact that as of this writing, Snowden's current whereabouts is unknown. He has simply dropped out of sight. Did he defect, or was he swept up by the PRC or other hostile entity? We just don't know. Being so high-profile, I can't imagine how Snowden could easily remain concealed for long, unless, of course, his concealment was forced on him. We can only speculate as to his whereabouts at this time. We'll just have to  wait and see.

Finally, let's not rush to final judgement about Mr. Snowden. The NSA apologists, and there are many, will attempt to discredit him. Those who fear the worst about "our" government, which are also numerous, will applaud his nobility and courage. However, those seeking the unvarnished truth about Snowden and the NSA will give him the benefit of the doubt and await developments.

This is the stuff of spellbinding novels, for sure. But, for me, the big concern is NOT whether Snowden was a spy, which, at this juncture strikes me as fanciful at best, but whether or not "our" government was/is spying on us. Which of the two scenarios should be more concerning to an American? Hands down, I'd say the latter--in spades!

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



Postscript, 6/13/13: If Mr. Snowden's sole purpose is to alert Americans that they are being spied upon by their own government, I am sincerely sympathetic and supportive. However, I am troubled and somewhat surprised by reports circulating on the internet today that he is determined to disclose more documents than is absolutely needed to accomplish that lofty goal. I  hope my guarded sympathy for Snowden hasn't been misplaced. If these reports are true, then it appears Snowden is fast approaching the status of "Betrayer" versus a "Paul Revere". We can only hope his judgement and sense of patriotism doesn't fail him or the American people now.

Edward Snowden--A Treasonous Villain or Champion of Freedom?

Some brief opinions and observations regarding Edward Snowden:

Is there anything more sinister to Ed Snowden's disclosure than meets the eye? And just what did Snowden disclose that was so injurious to US national security--but, more importantly, to the individual security of Americans themselves?

In my opinion, there was nothing nefarious or inexcusable about Snowden's disclosure. In fact, the disclosure--whatever that disclosure actually entailed--was most likely a valuable and timely wake-up call to those of us who are not yet brain-dead and who still value what little remains of our liberty.

Now the "poster child", if you will,  for the 1st and 4th Amendments, Snowden is "hiding" in plain sight--no unexplained "accidents" that way, they say. Understanding that he's broken the "law", he's justifiably worried about his safety, his future, his family. Said he, "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, but I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant." Not exactly the articulation of a double-agent for China, but a young man hoping to somehow survive his lonely Davidian battle against Goliath.

And for the detractors and conspiracists, yes, he disclosed what appears to have been evidence of the NSA's unbridled and unconstitutional attack on the privacy of millions of Americans; but, the fact that he did so while China's Pres. Xi was visiting with Obama in California strikes me as purely coincidental, not a diabolical Snowden-PRC plan to embarrass the US. Enough said about that, I think.

And let's keep in mind the HUGE distinction between Snowden and PFC Bradley Manning. The latter arbitrarily DUMPED classifed documents with no regard for the harm such a callous action might cause to both national security AND individual lives. Their motivations were completely different. Asserted Snowden, "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed [to the Guardian] to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is." Thus, Manning was thoughtless and brash. Snowden was sensitive to individuals' safety & the republic's security, and was clearly driven by his desire to protect individual rights.

Though his choice of Hong Kong was, at first, a tad mystifying to me, on balance I think I would have done the same. First, it is geographically closer to Hawaii than Iceland. Second, if I feared for my life and wanted to reduce the risk of capture and imprisonment by US authorities, I too would have opted for Hong Kong, the best of both worlds for a whistleblower. After all is said and done, Iceland may have initially proven to be more susceptible to US pressure to extradite, while the PRC can't be so easily bullied. (That said, Iceland is now carefully mulling over the idea of granting Snowden political asylum. And if that works out, then Snowden is "home" free--not, of course, in his USA homeland, but in a western-oriented country that proudly values individual liberty, and where he might again be able to reunite with his family and friends.)

Having thrice viewed the Guardian's interview of Mr. Snowden, there's something remarkably inspiring about this young man's sincerity, composure, acuity, and audacity--qualities and character strengths American patriots must draw upon if we are to successfully restore constitutional order in America and to prevent a police state taking hold. A GED graduate, and, obviously, a well-spoken and highly intelligent young man, I think we all need to give him the benefit of the doubt until such time that it is proven that self-serving and treasonous motives alone may have motivated him.

Let's understand what Mr. Snowden apparently did. He courageously sounded the alarm in a singularly unpretentious manner which characterized a man refreshingly at ease with having made a monumentally difficult, lonely and yet highly principled life-changing choice. No small feat for the best of us. For me, his unaffected and forthright manner confer much credibility to both him and to his story.

And isn't it ironic--indeed sickening--how upset Obama is over this and other leaks--unless, of course, he is the one doing the leaking for personal political gain. Selective indignation and shameless hypocrisy yet again. For Obama, par for the course.

And to our "representatives" who defend NSA's overreach and what is likely their expansive and faulty interpretation of the Patriot Act, they have much to answer for. In the name of all that's holy, I urge them to uphold their oath of office, and, at long last, to provide intensive OVERSIGHT not only of the NSA, but of the entire runaway bureaucratic Leviathan in DC. Oh, yes. And I urge them to read the Constitution they have sworn to uphold!

My friends, we are truly at a tipping point. Our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments are under assault as never before in our nation's history. Trite though it might sound, I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that our very liberties genuinely hang in the balance. Like never before, I sense that we as a nation are perilously close to dissolution and/or upheavel, and that only We the People, most of whom remain effectively disengaged, are able to stop it. So, I thank you, Mr. Snowden, for showing us all how very close to disaster we Americans really are. We've been forewarned yet again. This time, let's hope enough of us in Congress and at the grassroots level take heed.

"Those who sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither. He who would trade Liberty for some temporary security deserves neither Liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin, 1755