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.