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.