Article V Convention OR Invoke the 10th Amendment?

Further to my January 17th post regarding the 10th Amendment, let me briefly add the following comments.

On many sites there appears to be a battle raging between Art V and 10th Amendment proponents. The point of contention: which constitutional process will work best to restore constitutional order?

My view is that BOTH are perfectly legitimate and much-needed remedies which should be vigorously pursued.

If we all just lean back and think about it for a moment, I believe we can all agree that, hands down, nullification is the most peaceful, least onerous, least time-consuming and most efficient remedy to federal tyranny, and that only ignorance and timidity can prevent nullification's successful application.

My only concerns–NOT objections–to Art V: 1) the tortuous length of time it will require, during which all manner of federal mischief and excess can be perpetrated, and 2) how can we reasonably be assured that new amendments will be honored any more than those which currently grace the Constitution? And if those newly ratified amendments are similarly dishonored/ignored with impunity by Leviathan, then what? A circular path back to square one.

SO, I say let’s do both in tandem. Why? New amendments and the repeal of some existing amendments are clearly needed in order to restore constitutional order and economic sanity. But while the Art V process is underway, state nullification can quickly checkmate further federal erosion of State sovereignty and individual liberties, thus eliminating the very real possibility of our having to resort to rebellion or secession, both of which, by the way, are God-given natural rights and Founder-sanctioned when all else fails.

O'Reilly's Pre-Bowl Interview of Obama: My Take

There were a number of unflattering opinions published on the internet about how well O'Reilly handled his surprisingly brief Pre-Super Bowl interview of Obama yesterday. Not always a fan of Bill, I have to take exception to those negative appraisals of his performance. I thought he did as fine a job as any journalist could have done.

From the outset, and despite Obama's signature parsing, double-talk and filibustering, I thought O'Reilly was remarkably dogged, unflappable and in control. What made that clear to me was the frequency with which Obama defensively lashed out at FOX at nearly every turn.

Obama's embarrassing mendacity and insincerity was on full display for all honest and objective folks to see. His body language, blinking eyes, tell-tale and mechanical Cheshire cat grin, and his frequent loss of eye contact spoke volumes. For me, the interview didn't break new ground, but DID underscore--yet again--that Obama is, manifestly, a shameless, prevaricating hack, and nothing more.

When O'Reilly asked Obama about his stated desire to "fundamentally transform the USA" and why Obama felt that way, Obama quickly dodged and weaved, implying by his circuitous reply that he didn't use those words. My stomach turned.

This guy is a self-serving, amoral, pathological liar. An incorrigible  narcissist of the first order, he will, in fact, go down as the most morally corrupt, untrustworthy, unscrupulous and least respected chief executive in our nation's history--that is, assuming we have a history as a nation for much longer.

What is blindingly crystal clear to all but his craven sycophants is that this poor excuse for a President--and a man--needs to resign or be impeached and removed for high crimes and misdemeanors. Absolutely no question about it--at all! (Perhaps "Operation American Spring" can pull that off this summer, and for the country's sake, I sincerely hope so. GO OAS!)


So, despite all the negative commentary, to my way of  thinking O'Reilly did a creditable job. Can't imagine how he could have done better without jabbing his finger in Barry's face to evoke an unguarded response. But, let's face it. Even with that, Barry's much too instinctively serpentine to have permitted such candor and honesty.

For me, I learned nothing new. Obama was once again exposed for the charlatan and scoundrel he genuinely is.

"Operation American Spring":Will it Work?

Though not yet covered by the MSM, the internet is abuzz with news and extensive commentary regarding "Operation American Spring" which kicks off May 16th in DC.

 From conservative sites, news of the operation is being met with a mix of grassroots angst, fervent support, thoughtful reservations, sincere doubts, and even some ridicule as to its efficacy, especially as it relates to the constitutionality and achievement of Phase 2 objectives described below.

Conservative grassroots anxiety has also been expressed regarding the likelihood of Obama's deliberately inciting violence and using that as a pretext for imposing martial law. Others have complained about the operation's being somehow badly timed (whatever that means), inadequately organized, and ill-equipped to handle the exigencies of such a massive and sustained turnout and occupation.

Still others worry that the media will deliberately de-legitimize and demonize the movement and its "lawless participants" (so, what's new)' thus eclipsing the movement's  momentum by undermining public support. Still other detractors have gone out of their way to argue that OAS will do little  more than seriously jeopardize conservative chances for an electoral victory in November. In short, lot's of excuses for doing nothing or more of the same, which is essentially nothing.

As can be expected, the omnipresent trolls are out in force attacking Col. Riley's motivations and impugning his honor--without a shred of proof, of course--and sowing discord and confusion to the extent possible. All very obvious to the trained reader, but to the unwary their venom has some perceptible effect.

Spearheaded by one COL. Riley, the following is the OAS plan:

Phase 1 – Field millions, as many as ten million, patriots who will assemble in a non-violent, physically unarmed (Spiritually/Constitutionally armed), display of unswerving loyalty to the US Constitution and against the incumbent government leadership, in Washington, D.C., with the mission to bring down the existing leadership. Go full-bore, no looking back, steadfast in the mission.
Phase 2 – One million or more of the assembled 10 million must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes to see Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Attorney General Holder removed from office. The senior republican in the US House of Representatives will become Speaker of the House and the US House of Representatives will elect a temporary President and Vice President of the United States. The U.S. Senate will take action to elect a new majority and minority leader.
As required, the U.S. Congress will execute appropriate legislation to convene new elections or U.S. States will appoint replacements for positions vacated consistent with established constitutional requirements.
Phase 3 – Those with the “principles” of a West, Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, will comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President.
*All actions in Phase 2 and 3 will be consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

According to the Patriots for America site, considerable planning for all manner of contingencies has been underway for some time now. Nothing in the areas of logistics, self-policing/security, sanitation, medical care, emergency housing, retreat strategies, etc. is being left to chance. And, from all indications, the detailed planning and organization continues unabated and at full speed.

Having followed this for some time now, from my humble perspective, many of the naysayers are simply ignorant of the careful and detailed preparations underway to ensure the operation's success and sustainability. To wit, this isn't a government operation; this is a military-led civilian operation. And having been in a military leadership role myself (Infantry Captain, US Army), I believe we can all be assured of a well-planned, disciplined and well-executed operation from start to finish. Like every such operation, objectives and tactics will be permitted to quickly and efficiently adjust to realities on the ground. For this reason, particular objectives may necessarily change, though the overall strategy to prevail in the end will not.




The short and sweet of it is this: I am of the view that OAS is the only genuine patriotic push-back effort we have going for us at the moment. For me, arm-chair and carping patriots unwilling to get out from behind their keyboards pose a greater threat to patriotic efforts to restore constitutional order and economic sanity than anything OAS participants could possibly perpetrate.



That said, like any patriot worth his salt, I too have questions. A blind follower I have never been. As I have shared with Col. Riley, I sincerely question the attainability of Phase 2 objectives. Why? If the targeted political hacks--who, by the way, are duly elected political hacks-- refuse to resign, then what? Like the plague, an operation should avoid a "what now?" moment at all costs. Nothing could be more debilitating to an operation's momentum and demoralizing to its participants than such a moment of vacillation and uncertainty. Such a moment of ambiguity could easily encourage participants to either retreat with egg on their face or to quickly and ill-advisedly commit to a more forceful and, perhaps, undisciplined approach to removing those politicians from office. And IF the latter is the underlying aim of OAS leaders--and I have no reason to believe that it is--then it really is the beginning of a full-scale people's rebellion. At that point, we will ALL be forced to make a critically important decision for ourselves, our families and our country: yield to a more emboldened ruling class or resist by all means necessary. And though I question the Phase 2 "removal objective", in the final analysis I am confident that the careful planning underway will prevent such a debilitating moment. In the end, the prize, that being the restoration of constitutional order, will be achieved.



My hope--and, in truth, my expectation--is that as the certainty of a massive occupation of DC becomes clearer to both the MSM and to the political elites in DC, the latter who value their hides more than their country will unilaterally take corrective actions to assuage participants' fervor and to appease OAS demands before May 16th. In that regard, I'm hopeful that the mere threat of such massive numbers descending on DC will, at the very least, compel the ruling class to TIMELY appoint special prosecutors to investigate Obama's eligibility/fraud/impeachability/possible treason, as well as the Fast and Furious, Benghazi and IRS scandals. Of course a FIRM TIMELINE for completion of those investigations and appropriate and timely convictions, removals and punishment of those found in any way culpable should be insisted upon and fully achieved before OAS agrees to stand down.



I have to say that never in my lifetime could I have ever envisioned such a turbulent and dangerous time in our country. The sincere expressions of grassroots anger, fear and disillusionment are deeper and far more widespread than I could ever have imagined.  Oh, the detractors, that being the subversive trolls and the fair-weather, whimpering and overly-cautious "patriots", are making their presence known on the internet, but their whimpering is consistently and quickly drowned out by a flood of unwavering patriotic fervor unlike anything I've ever seen. So, I predict that the OAS occupation will achieve its patriotic goals this year. But, it can't  happen without a critical mass of patriots stepping up.



Finally, these words of advice from "Lone Survivor" seem especially relevant for patriots everywhere: "Find an excuse to win!" Without a convincing alternative plan for real action to restore constitutional order, excuses for inaction are totally unacceptable and meaningless.

Another Judicial Outrage!

In yet another painful example of judicial overreach, last week a federal judge imperiously ruled against Oklahoma's constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between a man and woman.

Folks, this has nothing to do with one's personal feelings about how marriage should be defined. It is about the Rule of Law, the Constitution itself, and co-equality between the States and the central government.

My humble advice to Oklahomans is to dust off the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution and to summarily nullify this outrageously lawless ruling.

   
       9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be 
                                   construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

     10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
                                   nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
                                   respectively, or to the people.

Never once did our Founders grant federal judges constitutional authority to override/veto/nullify a State Constitutional Amendment which fully comports with the Constitution of the United States. And in this case, like marijuana and a whole host of other matters, defining marriage is strictly a matter for the State and the citizens of that State to decide and not the federal government--and most certainly NOT an unelected, unaccountable, black-robed judicial oligarch, an agent of the overreaching federal Leviathan!

The Founders purposely limited the federal government to those powers specifically enumerated in Article 1 Sec 8 and no others. Per the 10th Amendment, all other powers, whether expressed or implied, were vested in the States or the people. PERIOD. FULLSTOP.

   
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
― James Madison


Folks, this isn't rocket science. The Founders were crystal-clear on this point. Achieving co-equality between the States and the federal government was of paramount importance to the them, this to prevent what is currently happening, that being federal usurpation of State authority.


And, of course, those who cluelessly view this judge's ruling as perfectly legitimate and falling within the full authority of the judiciary speciously and inanely point to the oft-misinterpreted Supremacy Clause to justify their claim that federal law overrides State law. So, AGAIN, let's draw their undivided attention to these intellectual giants to the actual wording of the Supremacy Clause:


     Article VI, para 2 (Supremacy Clause): This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
     States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
     made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
     judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
     any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


So, what words do these obfuscators and snake oil types routinely and conveniently omit? Yup! You got it. And by omitting those crucial words one can easily conclude that the central government IS the supreme law of the land. And, of course, that's utterly preposterous.


The Supremacy Clause stipulates that the federal government, of which the judiciary is a part, is supreme, but ONLY within its constitutional sphere of authority. In those myriad undefined areas of authority the federal government has ZERO authority and the States are, in fact, supreme. What this means is that the CONSTITUTION--and neither an act by the federal government or the States--is the supreme Law of the Land.


A judge's brazenly overriding a State referendum of its citizens in a matter which clearly falls outside the purview of the federal government (Art 1 Sec) but, rather, falls within the clear purview of State authority is nothing short of tyrannical; thus, the ruling should be rendered null and void of no legal effect within the sovereign confines of the State of Oklahoma.


As stewards of the Constitution and the liberty of its citizens, Oklahoma should unhesitatingly NULLIFY the ruling. That's what Oklahoma should do. But, will they do it? NOT until they dust off the 10th Amendment, get a spine, some constitutional principle and assert their sovereign authority.


And we all wonder why this country is in meltdown mode?

Catharsis Alert: Immigrant vs Illegal Alien

This week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she was "insulted" that "illegal immigrant" was equated to criminality.

Well, that quickly brought my blood to a bubbly boil, and convinced me that now is as good a time as any to finally get this off my chest by bringing a modicum of clarity to this scramble of immigration terms--not only for Sonia, but everyone else as well. So, here goes...

A retired Associate Director for Immigration and Refugee Services, and a USCIS board-certified Immigration Counselor for 22 years, from the beginning of the open-borders debate I've been both vexed and annoyed by the widespread muddling of the textbook meaning of the term immigrant.

For the most part, I have concluded that this muddling has been intentional and has been perpetuated by the Left for the sole purpose of advancing its open-border political agenda. Objectively, there is no other reasonable explanation.

Not surprisingly, the MSM and many clueless folks on the Right as well have either deliberately or unwittingly adopted the paradoxical and misleading use of the term "illegal immigrant" which both adds to the confusion and serves to unfairly legitimize the status of an "illegal alien", aka "undocumented alien", or to de-legitimize the status of immigrants.

The short of it is this: by definition, an immigrant is a legal entrant. He or she was properly inspected and entered the country legally; thus, from a legal standpoint, describing a person as an "illegal immigrant" is self-contradictory for it erroneously describes an immigrant as illegal. To be clear, an entrant is either legal or illegal, i.e. an illegal alien/undocumented alien OR an immigrant. It is impossible to be both illegal AND an immigrant.

FYI: Those formally granted refugee or asylee status, a non-immigrant visa (tourist, working, etc), or immigrant status (family reunification case) are, of course, legal entrants. They were inspected by US authorities (i.e. documented), granted that legal status and permitted to enter the country legally. And only if a refugee, asylee, non-immigrant (visa holder) or immigrant violates the terms of his/her admission, e.g. overstaying one's visa or committing a serious crime, will his/her status revert to that of illegal/removable/deportable.

And this: from a sociological--not legal--standpoint, all persons who enter the country may be correctly described as "migrants" or, loosely, as "immigrants". But, just as all citizens are not natural-born citizens, not all migrants/immigrants are legal entrants.

Obviously, the use of term "illegal immigrant" merely adds a patina of legitimacy to an illegal alien's/illegal entrant's/undocumented alien's status. And, of course, that is the tendentious political purpose of many dishonest political hacks and word police on the Left, many of whom should know better.

So, please keep this differentiation in mind the next time you hear someone using the asinine term "illegal immigrant". Call 'em on it.

We are a proud nation of immigrants--NOT illegal aliens, overs-stayers, undocumented aliens, illegal entrants.  Pass it on!

And for the insulted and woefully misinformed Justice Sotomayor, you have the following immigration descriptors to rely upon to define an entrant into the United States: either an illegal alien, undocumented alien, illegal entrant OR legal entrant, legal non-immigrant, immigrant. Confusingly mixing and matching to accommodate your "feelings" or political predisposition is irresponsible, ignorant and shamelessly self-serving. Of more importance, it badly depreciates your credibility as a Supreme Court Justice.

There! That's it. Gee, I'm feeling better already...