"Pledge to America": A Beginning

I carefully read the Pledge today and am buoyed by its sincerity and clarity of purpose. And, frankly, I believe our founders would be reassured as well.

Though much is missing, e.g. term limits, tax code reform, English only, reducing the corporate tax rate, and reforming Social Security, there is still much to commend in the document.

Relying on those rock-solid founding principles which made America the exceptional economic and political power we all want it to be once again, the Pledge appears to be a commonsense and unabashed expression of an at-once chastened and reinvigorated GOP intent upon returning America to its constitutional principles and traditional American values. (Thank you, Tea Baggers one and all!)

Understandably short on specifics as to how their goals will actually be achieved, it does provide direction and clearly defined ending points. It will, of course, be the day-to-day strategy huddle of the players themselves on the field of political battle which will necessarily determine how the GOP will get us there. For me, therefore, until the battle is joined there’s really no need tipping off Progressives as to the GOPs specific tactics to achieve the Pledge’s goals. Just achieve them!

Despite Red State’s Eric Erickson who was so quick to denigrate what he apparently saw as the banality of the document, the Pledge didn’t strike me as a hollow, self-serving contrivance merely to get GOP candidates elected or re-elected. In any case, I’m all for the Pledge and ANY candidate who honestly and demonstrably espouses the Pledge.

The highlights of the Pledge which were of special interest to me were as follows:

1.impose a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees
2.cancel TARP
3.reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac (a long-term project)
4.repeal and replace Obamacare (repeal, of course, can’t happen
until we have a Republican President; however, reforming and withholding
funding to hamstring implementation of Obamacare is a must)
5.require congressional approval of any new federal regulation
which contributes to the deficit or destroys jobs
6.require that every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority(Finally, HR 450, the Enumerated Powers Act, has been adopted)
7.fully fund missile defense, enforce sanctions against Iran, keep
terrorist combatants in Guantanamo, and try foreign terrorists in military
courts
8.prevent elimination of Bush tax cuts and the resulting $3.8 trillion tax
hike in 2011
9.revive free enterprise by ending uncertainty in the business sector
10.end the burdensome 1099 reporting mandate
11.cancel unspent “stimulus” funds
12.eliminate ineffective or unnecessary federal programs
13.legislation should be understood by all interested parties before
being voted on; at least 3 days to read the bill; advance major legislation
one issue at a time—no packaging
14.establish unencumbered operational control over our borders; reaffirm
authority of states and local law enforcement to assist
15.restore transparency and accountability in Congress and throughout gov’t
16.increase access to domestic energy sources and oppose cap-and-trade
17.stop “card check”
18.cap deficit spending

Though it's up to each of us to make sure the GOP follows through, this is a laudable and do-able start, a blueprint to jumpstart restoration of a truly representative and responsible limited government. Am I necessarily cynical? Yup. But, am I reasonably hopeful? Yup. But, again, ultimately it's up to "we the people" to make sure it all happens.

In truth, this is probably our nation’s last chance to restore the luster of a republic whose century-long downward spiral into the bowels of socialism and authoritarianism has gone essentially unchecked. So, our work is yet undone.

So, let’s get behind this Pledge and hold our representatives’ feet to the fire at every critical step to ensure that the Pledge's short-term and long-term goals are achieved, failing which it really is over, folks. No drifting back to complacency and the GOP default position of accommodating the Progressives merely to get elected. For if that course is pursued, left before us will be but the bleak and unavoidable prospect of either secession and the disintegration of the union, or our uniform acceptance of servitude. And given those stark choices, I suspect most Americans will opt for secession.

We should all be mindful that our nation is “indivisible” only insofar as it uniformly embraces and advances its founding principles and strives for constitutional order. Nothing less should ever be tolerated by any American citizen. And to ensure these ends, we must continue to expect a lot of ourselves and much, much more character, courage and integrity in our representatives.

Let's get it done!

Afghanistan Policy: "Win" or Contain?

Isn't it time we started thinking outside the box?

We all know that in modern times Afghanistan has never been successfully defeated or occupied by a foreign military force. To wit, the Brits took it on the chin in 1842 and the Russians were very badly bloodied when they attempted a similar feat nearly a century and a half later.

With the infusion of thousands of American peacemakers and a motley throng of essentially tepid NATO “allies” into Afghanistan, all of whom are committed to nation-building as well as to military victory over the Taliban, it would appear that the Hindu Kush failures which inflicted the Brits and Russians in the past may have found new victims in the 21st century.

So, I have to wonder if the war as we are now waging it is worth all the blood and treasure? More to the point, how best can we achieve our legitimate goals there?

Normally a stalwart and reliable supporter of allied intervention in Afghanistan, even Britain’s prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies is now calling for a) the withdrawal of British troops, b) shifting allied emphasis to that of targeting Al Qaeda (AQ) and its allies, and c) abandoning the elusive and probably unachievable goal of creating a viable Afghan state. Not an encouraging signal to those among us who seek “victory”, that being understood as the creation of a functional and survivable centralized authority in Kabul, a historical incongruency if ever there was one.

Then there’s the bi-partisan Afghanistan Study Group (ASG) of academics, business executives, former government officials, policy wonks and the obligatory journalists which has discussed policy options for the Obama Administration for the past year. Mindful of Henry Kissinger’s admonition that “Afghanistan has never been pacified by foreign forces”, the ASG offered up, among others, the following observations and recommendations:

1.Even with a reduced American/allied presence, a Taliban takeover is now unlikely.
2.Smarting from their painful experience with AQ, a resurgent Taliban is very unlikely to again provide AQ “safe haven”.
3.A reduced allied military footprint would seriously hamper Taliban recruitment.
4.Hiding primarily in the northwest frontier, there are no more than 300 AQ operatives in Afghanistan who can be effectively engaged and neutralized by American special forces in theater. Thus, if eradicating AQ is the underlying objective, it can be accomplished with significantly fewer military assets and at considerably less cost.
5.Because Afghanistan has historically been fragmented and decentralized, pursuing a process of decentralization, power-sharing and political inclusion among principal Afghan parties is a more sensible course of action.
6.Since poverty can act as an incubator for terrorism, an intensive and on-going international effort to develop Afghanistan’s economy should be pursued.
7.Work toward Afghanistan’s neutrality and stability by diplomatically engaging regional and global stakeholders whose naturally competing national interests, e.g. Iran, India, Pakistan, China, will better serve to prevent Afghanistan’s being dominated by any single power, thus preventing Kabul’s exporting instability.
8.By being disproportionately focused on Afghanistan, America’s precious national assets have been diverted from its larger global security concerns like N. Korea, Iran, China and the Russian periphery (Georgia). This potentially costly and dangerous diversion of resources could easily lead to miscalculations and avoidable conflicts with which America, its deterrence capability currently diminished, is not as well prepared to deal.

Looking over the past nine years since the 9/11 terrorist attack on our homeland, one is immediately struck by the understandably enormous diversion of national assets to both prevent another devastating attack on the homeland as well as to effectively deter and root out terrorists worldwide. But if our justification for a significant diversion of resources to wage war in Afghanistan is to prevent AQ’s using Afghanistan as a platform to launch more attacks on the American heartland, that rationalization seems to have become increasingly hollow.

To wit, AQ’s offensive capability has been effectively crippled by our relentless worldwide anti-terrorist regime which, of course, ought to continue. Clearly, however, any future terrorist attacks can now be carried out by either remnants of AQ itself or by their allied organizations in Yemen or Somalia. Thus, the faulty rationale for our dedication of inordinately costly military and economic assets in Afghanistan.

And as George Friedman of Real Clear World recently and incisively posited, “9/11…cannot be permitted to define the totality of national strategy; terrorist attacks will occur [but] the world’s only global power cannot be captive to this single threat; the United States should have a global view and support a balance-of-power strategy [in the subcontinent and worldwide].”

In effect, Mr. Freidman is saying that since preventing terrorist attacks which cannot by their very nature be entirely prevented despite every conceivable counter measure, that, therefore, fighting terrorism should not be, as it has become, the centerpiece of American foreign policy.

He goes on to point out that taking ruthless advantage of the Islamic world’s internal rivalries should be a central component of our nation’s balance-of-power strategy to suppress the threat of Islamic militancy. To my ears, these thoughtful words ring acutely sensible.

The threats to peace posed by a resurgent China, an expansionist Russia, a destabilizing Venezuela, and a nuclear armed Iran and N. Korea are every bit as threatening—if not more so--to our national security as are any looming terrorist threats. Thus, perhaps a more rational and balanced blueprint going forward should, in fact, entail a carefully crafted, steady and measurable drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan, an uptick in sustained international economic development assistance there, and the deft application of a time-honored balance-of-power strategy involving our expediently playing off one regional power against another in order to safeguard Afghanistan’s stability, and, by extension, Pakistan’s decidedly vulnerable nuclear arsenal as well.

Of course, the goal of this strategy would be to achieve stability in Afghanistan, thereby allowing a diversion of precious American military and economic assets to more effectively deter potential opponents and conflicts around the world.

In short, our core national interests, and not our narrow focus on managing the terrorist threat alone, should necessarily dictate America’s foreign policy in the years to come. I believe that our acting on this cogent approach would prove to be a thoroughly and refreshingly America-first exercise in hard core realpolitik.

But is our liberal-dominated and insufferably self-absorbed Administration who is more interested in protection on the cheap and ill-conceived exit strategies capable of adopting such a sophisticated, mature and pragmatic Machiavellian approach in its foreign policy? I very seriously doubt it. Parochial domestic interests and shortsighted ideology vs clear-headed pragmatism and common sense seem destined to forever shape Obama’s courses of action at every level and in every sphere. So, it looks like it is now left to the next Commander-in-Chief to get us on the road to a more rational containment approach in Afghanistan. And with that end in mind, we can’t get to 2012 soon enough.

Honor Rally Heralds Return to America's Constitutional Roots

As anticipated, to denigrate and marginalize the Tea Party Movement and the Restoring Honor Rally on 8/28, in characteristically unscrupulous form many on the rattled left have launched a cascade of venomous racist epithets against Tea Baggers, Glenn Beck and all other conservative Americans--leaders and grassroots types alike--who have dared challenge the insufferable elitism and alien progressivism which now dominates the once venerable Democratic Party.

Like many other Rochesterians, I too attended the rally in DC on the 28th and was genuinely inspired by the propriety, patriotism and rectitude of the half-million grassroots Americans--men, women, children, veterans, and their families--who peacefully demonstrated their sincere and proud commitment to restoring constitutional order, free enterprise, our founding principles and honor to America.

A Second American Revolution? Absolutely no question about it.

I came away with this certainty in mind: awakened to the domestic political threats arrayed against us, a resurgent "we the people" WILL restore constitutional order. In time, cancerous alien ideologies like Socialism and Marxism, aka Progressivism, will soon have no home, much less a beachhead, in these United States.

Frankly, I've never felt more hopeful. But, the struggle is not yet over. We must keep our eyes on the ball and our noses to the grindstone. More dispiriting challenges await us, so don't go along to get along, don't surrender, and keep moving forward.

Birthright Citizenship: Politics vs Rule of Law

We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants 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 an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.

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 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 scary.  But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.

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 Lindsey Graham’s initial assertion that a constitutional amendment is needed to outlaw anchor babies, aka birthright (jus soli) citizenship, I was unable to find 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—in order to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.

To wit, 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) amends section 301 of the Immigration & 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 is 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 was 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, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical presence in the US would not render him/her under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.

The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship is based upon 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 that 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.)

To wit, 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 sovereignities 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. But note that in this case the parents were, unlike illegal entrants, legally present.

In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a 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 have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost in passing, 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 passing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—was woven into 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 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 divergence from 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 activists 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.

Gov. Brewer: Unwitting or Willing Victim?

Though the U.S. Constitution is of scant consequence in DC these days, Americans should remember that nullification continues to be a well-established and constitutionally justifiable remedy to federal overreach. But, a practical word of caution: only a determined act of nullification has any hope of success. (You may refer to my previous posts on nullification and the supremacy clause, or you may do your own research to substantiate that assertion.)

Now menaced by a seditious progressive legislative blitzkrieg in Congress, an imperial putative Presidency bent upon the "fundamental transformation of the United States", as well as a contagion of judicial activism stoked by subversive "living Constitution" ideologues, more than ever Americans must now more fully understand that our founders expressly espoused the right of states to nullify federal overreach at every turn. The framers also upheld the absolute right--indeed, the duty--of "we the people" to rebel against either federal or state usurpations of our individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, "we the people" are necessarily the ultimate arbiters in our republican system of government.

So, while I hail the 20-22 states who are currently striving to peacefully challenge Obamacare in the courts, we must be mindful that judges are political appointees who are often more apt to advance their insidious political agendas than to faithfully adhere to the rule of law. Like the "living Constitution" politicians who gave them life, too many of these jurists continue to blatantly ignore the U.S. Constitution as written by whimsically reinterpreting the Constitution's clear meaning to justify their own narrow political philosophies. And this is manifestly NOT what our founders had in mind.

To our founders, a tyrannical, unchecked judiciary is every bit as loathsome and dangerous to our republican form of government as are an unrestrained Congress or Executive. And right now, the Republic is getting slammed on all three political fronts. And this is precisely why nullification, or simply the threat of nullification, peaceful resistance, non-compliance or open rebellion should never, ever be taken off the table if our Republic is to survive.

That said, what's the real deal with Arizona? Frankly, I'm somewhat puzzled by the goings-on there.

Confronted by gross federal abdication of its constitutional responsibility to defend Arizona's border with Mexico, Governor Brewer, is, with the advice of the state's adjutant general, entirely within her constitutional rights to call up the state militia to police the border and thereby protect the citizens of Arizona; however, for the moment, anyway, she has allowed Arizona to be sucked into the tainted and unreliable court system to achieve protection for Arizonans. Why? Never mind that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a hotbed of judicial left-wing activism, and never mind that Arizona's laborious, time-consuming, and costly judicial appeals might well fail to achieve justice. Which leads me to ask this question: if Arizona loses her appeals, does the Governor obsequiously capitulate to judicial fiat, or does she do the right thing and simply enforce the Constitution of Arizona?

To me, the best defense is a good, clean, determined constitutional offense. Such will throw one's lawless adversaries, in this case the feds, completely off balance. The truth is that neither a formal nullification process nor a long dragged out judicial fight are necessary--or proper--to enforce SB 1070, in and of itself one of the most innocuous and insubstantial immigration laws in the country.

But, for me, here's the mystifying wrinkle in this strange saga. We all know Obama is playing politics with this "issue", but, alas, is Brewer guilty of political gamesmanship as well? And here's why I ask...

Since 2007, Missouri has passed a series of laws which serve to comprehensively deal with the illegal invasion of the state. Reportedly, it has worked wonders. Most recently, on July 6th, Gov. Blunt signed into law legislation which 1) bars the state from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens or to recognize licenses issued by other states to persons unlawfully in the United States; 2) imposes criminal penalties for those assisting illegal aliens in obtaining driver's licenses; 3) prhohibits the creation of sanctuary cities by stripping state funding and grants from any municipality that attempts to enact sanctuary policies; 4) requires public employers, including state contractors, to verify the work authorization of all employees through E-Verify; 5) requires government agencies to verify the legal status of applicants before providing public benefits; 6) imposes criminal penalties on individuals convicted of transporting illegal immigrants for exploitive purposes; 7) requires law enforcement to verify the legal immigration status of every individual presented for incarceration and to release to the Dept. of Homeland Security all persons determined to be in the U.S. unlawfully; 8) provides penalties for employers who knowlingly hire illegal aliens, including suspension of business licenses, permits and exemptions; 9) illegal aliens are barred from enrolling in all public universities in the state. Also, in 2007 a constitutional amendment was adopted by referendum which made English the official language of all governmental proceedings in Missouri. Thus, in Missouri everything--and so, so much more--that Arizona is seeking in its own immigration laws is already being successfully enforced with no federal law suits nipping at their heels either. So what gives?

The viability of Missouri's immigration laws suggests to me that Arizona has, for some unknown reason, allowed itself to be needlessly used and victimized by the White House and its radical left wing minions around the country. We know that the high profile federal suit against Arizona is but a shameless self-serving ploy intended by the White House to curry favor with Latino voters. But with Missouri's immigration laws as brilliantly clear examples of what can legally be done at the state level, doesn't Gov. Brewer know she can avoid all the expense and tumult by simply enforcing SB 1070? So, I have to ask just who's gaming whom? Is the Governor really that inept, clueless, weak-kneed and spineless? Like, just what is going on?

To me, it is clear that Arizona is wasting valuable resources defending itself in this matter. The state simply doesn't need federal consent or cooperation to implement SB 1070. So, unless Gov. Brewer is playing politics with Arizona voters, she should get on with it and immediately enforce the law, anemic though it is. Case in point: also elected by the people, Sheriff Arpaio, a fellow Arizonan official, is dutifully enforcing immigration laws with virtual impunity. So why can't the entire State of Arizona do so as well? Like, what will the Administration do? Invade? Not even they are that stupid or imperial--yet. And what can lefty Judge Bolton or the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals do? Answer: NADA! Why? Because when a state asserts its constitutional rights, it invariably prevails. And on this notorious SB 1070 non-issue, who's going to go to war over it? Certainly not the feds. They wouldn't have a consitutional leg to stand on, and popular opinion would effectively checkmate the White House and its lawless judicial minions in any event. So, in the case of Arizona, a formal nullification process is simply not needed to get the job done and to stanch the needless bleeding.

Knowing that the White House will do nothing to jeopardize its standing with Latino voters, and absent Arizona taking the appropriate action, Arizonans can count on being continually victimized for a long time to come. But, if Arizonans are truly determined to protect themselves, they need to do just that and move on. Frankly, I'm wearying of the hand-wringing and needless melodrama. Arizona must simply do what it needs to do to protect its citizens. Wasting valuable time and resources on costly and unnecessary appeals is utterly nonsensical. Arizona should stop being the White House's political football. If the Governor simply asserts Arizona's rights, the whole charade, the Obama thuggery, will come to a screeching halt. And if Arizona needs donations to compensate for any loss in federal funding, or to pay for enforcement and/or the militia's call-up, the Governor needs but to ask and millions from around the country will pour into Arizona's coffers.

Finally, if you really want to resolve this issue, Governor, clarity of purpose, leadership, determination, principle, constitutional integrity, and political courage are all that is needed. Or is there something else going on you're not telling us?

Why Not Mobilize the Arizona Militia?

Faced with deadly cross border forays from Mexican drug cartels, afflicted by the suffocating incursion of nearly a half million illegal aliens, and confronted by a federal government's unwillingness to properly protect the people of Arizona and the United States from such incursions and violence, what is the Governor of Arizona to do? More precisely, what can she lawfully do?

First, a few US Constitution and federal law cites:

The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...engage in War, unless invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Under 32 USC 109, the federal government recognizes state defense forces, aka State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias. This force may not be called, ordered, or drafted into US armed forces, e.g. the National Guard.

The Militia Act of 1903 created two classes of militias: 1) organized, i.e. the National Guard, and 2) unorganized, i.e. every able-bodied man 17-45 who is not a member of the National Guard or reserve.

And this from the Arizona Constitution:

Chapter 1, Article 2, Revised Statute 26-124:

A. When the governor proclaims an emergency, and, upon advice of the adjutant general, determines that the national guard does not have sufficient troops to meet the emergency, the governor may authorize the adjutant general to accept for service from the unorganized militia a specified number of volunteers.

B. If the governor deems an emergency of a nature that all or a large portion of the unorganized militia should be called into service of the state, s/he shall by proclamation order all members of the unorganized militia to enroll with the county recorder of the county in which they reside...The persons called into service shall be determined by lot in accordance with a plan devised by the governor and implemented by him/her...

C. Upon mobilization for state purposes members of the unorganized militia shall be organized under the command of the officer the governor designates into units comparable to units of the national guard.

Note: while the Posse Comitatus Act limits the power of the federal government to use the militia for law enforcement, it does not prevent a state governor's calling up the National Guard OR the state militia to respond to domestic emergencies and disasters.

Recent Arizona developments:

My understanding is that a volunteer state military force (aka Homeland Security Force) has yet to be formally mustered which the state could call upon in the event the state's reliance upon the National Guard for homeland security purposes is somehow pre-empted by the federal government or if the National Guard is otherwise unavailable to the state.

Whether what is happening in Arizona constitutes an invasion or a domestic emergency/disaster, it seems abundantly clear to me that the Governor is constitutionally empowered to unilaterally call up the Militia in order to protect the citizens of Arizona whose security is her constitutional responsibility.

So, why hasn't Governor Brewer called up the militia? First, because unlike 22 other states which have formally established State Militias (apart from the National Guard), Arizona does not. Also, her calling up the Militia might well be viewed by many Americans as an over-reaction and, of course, there is the political risk should the militiamen be improperly trained. Or perhaps she's just biding her time until it becomes crystal clear to all that Obama has no intention whatsoever of honoring his constitutional responsibility--that being to properly protect the border--and that she has, therefore, no other recourse if she is to safeguard the citizens of Arizona.

My guess is that if the situation further deteriorates, the Governor cannot in good conscience or in good faith avoid a call-up of the State Militia. And I suspect her action in this regard would be overwhelmingly supported by most Arizonans and Americans everywhere. At least it should be.

My personal belief is that all States--and let Arizona lead the way--must begin, in earnest, to properly prepare themselves to credibly resist both federal overreach and federal dereliction at every turn. Because we live in increasingly perilous and uncertain political times, all states should re-commit themselves to properly asserting their rightful sovereignty as provided by the founders and the Tenth Amendment. If liberty and the Republic are to survive the relentless Progressive onslaught, there is simply no other reasonable option.

Update: Obama Eligibility Brief

The burning issue of Obama's possible ineligibility continues to brew. And though I have monitored developments, I have assumed, rightly or wrongly, that others have been following this tortured saga as well. But, for those who haven't strayed into this unsettling and dispiriting territory, here's a very brief synopsis for your review.

In a recent interview with the Egyptian Foreign Minister which was aired on Nile TV, Obama admitted he was a Muslim. In his book, he admitted his father was Kenyan, a British Citizen at the time. And in a recent speech, his wife, Michele, proudly confirmed that Barry, her husband, was born in Kenya. So, is Obama a serial prevaricator? Most likely. And I don't need to insult your intelligence by rehashing here the mountain of evidence supporting that conclusion.

So, just who is this guy? And why all the mystery and unanswered questions about his background, his foundational beliefs and legal qualifications to be America's president? No one but Obama’s closest inner circle of academics, apparatchiks, ideological sycophants, political handlers, lawyers and his gaggle of neo-Marxist advisors seems to know for sure. We sure as hell don't, but, increasingly, many more of us are starting to seriously wonder--and ask.

It's very important to remember that, to date, Obama has spent nearly $2 million to block all attempts to access his college and passport documentation as well as his long form birth certificate, the latter reportedly still in lockdown in Hawaii. Whether it's there or not remains to be seen. By executive order when elected, he put his personal information off limits and hired a team of lawyers to keep enquiring minds at bay on that score. Why?

To date, of course, no law suit against Obama has succeeded. Why? Because, according to the courts, neither do they have the authority to adjudicate the issue nor do "we the people" have the "standing" to bring such law suits. Incredible! Like, who does then? A citizen of Mali? Surely, this is an outrageous and potentially disastrous breach in our judicial system. At this time, and in response to this electoral and judicial aberration, state legislatures in OK, AZ, GA, VA and IN are working on legislation to require any future presidential candidate to submit adequate proof of his/her eligibility before the candidate's name can be placed on the ballot in those states. Better late than never, I suppose.

Recently, a decorated and thoughtful Army medical officer, LTC Lakin, refused to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan for the second time on the grounds that the deployment orders were illegitimate since, to him, the eligibility of the Commander-in-Chief is in serious doubt. Courageously opting for a court martial, his intention is to force discovery upon the Obama legal team. Can a defendent in the American judicial system actually be denied discovery? I wouldn't put anything past this White House. Thus, the military is definitely in a quandary over this one. Will they do the White House's bidding, or will a defendent's right of discovery be sustained? Stay tuned. Right now, the outcome is an open question.

Although Article II, Section 1 of our tattered Constitution, that pesky impediment to tyranny, unambiguously requires that all presidents be “natural born citizens”, meaning that, minimally, they be born of two US Citizen parents, from the beginning of Obama’s whirlwind and glitzy campaign it is painfully obvious that no electoral officials seriously bothered to properly and substantively establish his constitutional eligibility to occupy the White House, the “People’s House”.

And despite scurrilous criticism and mindless epithets hurled at them, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), Rep. Mike Ritze (R-OK), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), and Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) have all openly questioned the constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as our Commander-in-Chief. Among others, Rep Ray Blount (R-MO), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and even Gov. Sarah Palin have also expressed their belief that questions about Obama’s eligibility are, indeed, legitimate.

Also, Bill Posey (R-FL) has already introduced HR 1503 in Congress which would require that, in the future, a campaign committee must submit the “birth certificate” (not a meaningless certificate of live birth) and “other documentation as may be necessary to establish a candidate’s qualifications” to be President. As said, current law does not require such a minimal level of substantive proof. Incredibly, proof of a person's qualifications has heretofore been determined by the outcome of the election itself, not by the electoral system's scrutiny of one's qualifications prior to the election. Amazingly shortsighted and potentially explosive.

As Judge Roy Moore, former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice, opined, “Why doesn’t the president have to show that he’s a natural born citizen?...We’ve had all kinds of suits filed, and the press doesn’t mention them and the courts continually reject them…It’s troubling to me because we’ll suffer the consequences if we ignore the Constitution.” No kidding.

The awful truth is that the fawning liberal press deliberately ignores the issue, the courts refuse to review the merits of the many cases brought before them because they lack legal authority, the Supreme Court can't muster the 4 votes needed to hear the case, and those grassroots Americans seeking the truth are denied their right to challenge Obama’s eligibility because they lack legal standing. Wow! Talk about conundrums and brick walls. Democracy at work?

Obviously, the deleterious effect on the country's stability at every level should a usurper, or worse, be occupying the White House would be severe and far more unsettling than Watergate or any previous political scandals visited upon the Republic. But the calamitous effect on the United States if a usurper were simply allowed to occupy the White House, this to merely avoid political confrontation and unpleasantness, is far and away much more insidious.

Yup! Obama, Mr. Transparency, The One, The Post-Racial President, the most transformative, scripted and off-the-charts intelligent chief executive in our history--and the least known and most dissembling--is definitely one-of-a-kind alright. And in so many nefarious and unflattering ways.

Hold your breath and tighten your belts, folks. This seedy tale of intrigue and possible treachery has yet to unfold. But I am cautiously optimistic that in the end, the truth, whatever that might entail, will prevail. And, more importantly, so will the Constitution, the Republic and "We the People". For, in the end, that's what this struggle for the truth is really all about. Nothing more and nothing less.