Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Upon my return from DC on the 20th, I hesitated to publish this post beyond my own blog. But, perhaps it's time do so.

The Bureau of Land Management’s siege of the Bundy Ranch in Nevada compels me to re-publish this post. I ask readers to carefully research this issue and to decide for yourself whether or not the federal government has violated public trust and the Rule of Law.

For a painfully long time now, our federal masters and their judicial enablers have ignored and, to my way of thinking, flagrantly violated the Constitution with impunity. All too often, Supreme Court rulings have served to override common sense, constitutionality and original intent.

And so long as black-robed, unelected and unaccountable judicial oligarchs, aka judges–as well as the submissive states themselves–allow “judicial supremacy” to trump “constitutional supremacy” on a whole host of foundational constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty further degraded, constitutional order imperiled, common sense and Rule of Law abandoned.

To wit, per Art 1.8.17 of the Constitution and provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and despite a veritable cesspool of clubby, contrived and revisionist court rulings over the years through which I was barely able to wade, it appears glaringly obvious to me that our federal overseers are occupying millions of otherwise productive acres within the several states without the “concurrence” of those states and without constitutional justification.

Article 1.8.17 (“Enclave Clause”) granted power to Congress “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States [i.e. the District of Columbia], and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” Crystal-clear what the original meaning is here despite the shamelessly self-serving litany of subsequent spin on the part of our judicial overlords, lap dogs of the federal government.

POLL: Will Lois Lerner go to jail to protect Obama?

Clearly this clause meant that the people of the states empowered Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, provided it was with the consent of the legislature of that state, and that such lands would be used for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” Clearly implied in this clause is that the several states, the immediate fiduciary agents of the people, reserve the right to assume title to all lands within their borders which are not being used by the federal government for the specific purposes provided in the clause, that being “the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”

It is also important to note that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the enumerated power of complete jurisdiction and authority over state territory; thus, state retention and ownership of public lands stems from the 10th Amendment which reserves all rights to the states which are not specifically granted to Congress. The twisted and carefully crafted Delphic court rulings notwithstanding, the original meaning seems abundantly clear to me.

Art 4.3.1 allowed a mechanism for the formation and admission of new states into the union, and Art 4.3.2 described the extent of congressional authority over federal territory within those states. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that federal property applies only to the territory at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and is considered public land only until that territory is granted statehood and the national debt incurred by the Revolutionary War is paid. In other words, temporary federal control over those lands.

In accordance with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was re-enacted after the Constitution’s ratification, all new states were to be admitted to the union on the basis of full equality with the original thirteen states. It was generally understood that as territories were granted statehood, the people of those states would acquire title to all lands within their state boundaries—except, of course, those lands granted to the feds for those well-defined purposes cited in Art 1.8.17.

To help pay down the national debt, Congress assured the states of full title to those lands not used for federally sanctioned purposes when that land was sold off. The following then became the established policy for new states:

1. The feds would retain all ungranted public lands.

2. The feds guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.

3. The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.

4. States would be admitted on the basis of “equal footing” with the original 13 states (each of which retained complete ownership/control over their respective territories.

As a result, all states east of the Mississippi and those comprising the Louisiana Purchase eventually acquired title to all but a very small portion of the land lying within their state boundaries.

However, following our war with Mexico, Congress inexplicably digressed from this policy and virtually eliminated the sale or disposal of federal lands in the western states. This resulted in Congress’s retaining major portions of those state lands, this in seemingly direct contravention of the Constitution and of the Northwest Ordinance. Essentially, the federal government became the sole owner and manager of nearly 30%, or a whopping 650 million acres, of America’s landmass, for the constitutionally unspecified purposes of maintaining national forests, national parks, national monuments, Indian reservations, coal and oil reserves, lands leased to farmers and ranchers, and resources-rich so-called “wilderness areas”. And, of course, the cost to taxpayers for maintaining the sprawling federal bureaucracy in order to manage these federally controlled lands is in the billions of dollars.

Federal defenders of this overreach breathlessly point to the so-called “property clause” (Art 4.3.2) which provides that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make any needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and any territory or property belonging to the United States.” Clearly, doesn't this create a convenient constitutional ambiguity by contradicting the original intent of Art 1.8.17? Does this not exact restrictions on the western states, which had never been imposed on earlier states? So much for states being admitted into the union on “equal footing” and “full equality” with earlier states. Is federal retention of 30% of America’s real estate really a “necessary and proper” exercise of federal powers? For me to believe that would require a willful suspension of common sense.

To give you an idea of how much state land is now imperially held by the feds, check this out: NV 85%, AL 70%, UT, 60%, OR 53%, AZ 47%, CA 45%, WY 42%, NM 42%, CO 37%, and poor Alaska 96%! Note: 65% of federal land holdings are located west of the Mississippi and a paltry 1% of all federally controlled land in the country is currently being utilized for those specific purposes cited in Art 1.8.17. One must wonder why these lands are still being held by the feds. Pay off the Revolutionary War debt? Gee, I don’t think so. Lofty, if not entirely contrived, constitutional justifications? Or, more likely, the relentless federal grasp for power and, today, a way to placate a host of environmental allies by denying the states and the country access to those climate-warming pollutants such as oil and gas.

Regarding the Enclave Clause, James Madison stated that “the public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.” But, have the courts sought the concurrence of the states? Nope.

Clearly, the federal government is occupying millions of acres without the “concurrence” of those states, but maintains their grip with the twisted and self-serving judicial sanction of federal Courts intent upon expanding and strengthening federal power.

So, what is the recourse of the several states? My opinion, which is shared by many other originalists, is that in keeping with the doctrine of state sovereignty, original intent and the 10th Amendment, states should simply legislatively assume title of all lands not being utilized by the federal government as specified in the Enclave Clause. Of course, to placate the courts and public opinion, states should first sue the federal government to acquire title. And since the states will not prevail in such a lopsided judicial struggle, they should then rightfully and unhesitatingly assert their 10th Amendment rights by immediately assuming direct ownership and control of what I have dubbed the “royal federal reserves” lying within their state boundaries.

But, do the chastened, weak-kneed, and heavily bribed states have the backbone to hazard the restoration of their constitutional sovereignty and honor? Ah, yes, that’s the burning question.

The constitutional issue aside for a moment, in truth the achievement of energy independence alone should provide ample motivation for the states and their people to step up and take back their land, which is illegally held by the feds. And should the states fail to assert their rights under the original constitution, they should quietly accept their bondage and compliantly move on with their drab, submissive lives.

“An injustice unchallenged is justice denied. “Author Unknown

“Nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to absurd or unjust consequences. “Abraham Lincoln (1861)

The Bureau of Land Management’s siege of the Bundy Ranch in Nevada compels me to re-publish this post. I ask readers to carefully research this issue and to decide for yourself whether or not the federal government has violated public trust and the Rule of Law.

For a painfully long time now, our federal masters and their judicial enablers have ignored and, to my way of thinking, flagrantly violated the Constitution with impunity. All too often, Supreme Court rulings have served to override common sense, constitutionality and original intent.

And so long as black-robed, unelected and unaccountable judicial oligarchs, aka judges–as well as the submissive states themselves–allow “judicial supremacy” to trump “constitutional supremacy” on a whole host of foundational constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty further degraded, constitutional order imperiled, common sense and Rule of Law abandoned.

To wit, per Art 1.8.17 of the Constitution and provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and despite a veritable cesspool of clubby, contrived and revisionist court rulings over the years through which I was barely able to wade, it appears glaringly obvious to me that our federal overseers are occupying millions of otherwise productive acres within the several states without the “concurrence” of those states and without constitutional justification.

Article 1.8.17 (“Enclave Clause”) granted power to Congress “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States [i.e. the District of Columbia], and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” Crystal-clear what the original meaning is here despite the shamelessly self-serving litany of subsequent spin on the part of our judicial overlords, lap dogs of the federal government.

Clearly this clause meant that the people of the states empowered Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, provided it was with the consent of the legislature of that state, and that such lands would be used for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” Clearly implied in this clause is that the several states, the immediate fiduciary agents of the people, reserve the right to assume title to all lands within their borders which are not being used by the federal government for the specific purposes provided in the clause, that being “the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”

It is also important to note that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the enumerated power of complete jurisdiction and authority over state territory; thus, state retention and ownership of public lands stems from the 10th Amendment which reserves all rights to the states which are not specifically granted to Congress. The twisted and carefully crafted Delphic court rulings notwithstanding, the original meaning seems abundantly clear to me.

Art 4.3.1 allowed a mechanism for the formation and admission of new states into the union, and Art 4.3.2 described the extent of congressional authority over federal territory within those states. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that federal property applies only to the territory at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and is considered public land only until that territory is granted statehood and the national debt incurred by the Revolutionary War is paid. In other words, temporary federal control over those lands.

In accordance with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was re-enacted after the Constitution’s ratification, all new states were to be admitted to the union on the basis of full equality with the original thirteen states. It was generally understood that as territories were granted statehood, the people of those states would acquire title to all lands within their state boundaries—except, of course, those lands granted to the feds for those well-defined purposes cited in Art 1.8.17.

To help pay down the national debt, Congress assured the states of full title to those lands not used for federally sanctioned purposes when that land was sold off. The following then became the established policy for new states:

1. The feds would retain all ungranted public lands.

2. The feds guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.

3. The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.

4. States would be admitted on the basis of “equal footing” with the original 13 states (each of which retained complete ownership/control over their respective territories.

As a result, all states east of the Mississippi and those comprising the Louisiana Purchase eventually acquired title to all but a very small portion of the land lying within their state boundaries.

However, following our war with Mexico, Congress inexplicably digressed from this policy and virtually eliminated the sale or disposal of federal lands in the western states. This resulted in Congress’s retaining major portions of those state lands, this in seemingly direct contravention of the Constitution and of the Northwest Ordinance. Essentially, the federal government became the sole owner and manager of nearly 30%, or a whopping 650 million acres, of America’s landmass, for the constitutionally unspecified purposes of maintaining national forests, national parks, national monuments, Indian reservations, coal and oil reserves, lands leased to farmers and ranchers, and resources-rich so-called “wilderness areas”. And, of course, the cost to taxpayers for maintaining the sprawling federal bureaucracy in order to manage these federally controlled lands is in the billions of dollars.

Federal defenders of this overreach breathlessly point to the so-called “property clause” (Art 4.3.2) which provides that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make any needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and any territory or property belonging to the United States.” Clearly, doesn't this create a convenient constitutional ambiguity by contradicting the original intent of Art 1.8.17? Does this not exact restrictions on the western states, which had never been imposed on earlier states? So much for states being admitted into the union on “equal footing” and “full equality” with earlier states. Is federal retention of 30% of America’s real estate really a “necessary and proper” exercise of federal powers? For me to believe that would require a willful suspension of common sense.

To give you an idea of how much state land is now imperially held by the feds, check this out: NV 85%, AL 70%, UT, 60%, OR 53%, AZ 47%, CA 45%, WY 42%, NM 42%, CO 37%, and poor Alaska 96%! Note: 65% of federal land holdings are located west of the Mississippi and a paltry 1% of all federally controlled land in the country is currently being utilized for those specific purposes cited in Art 1.8.17. One must wonder why these lands are still being held by the feds. Pay off the Revolutionary War debt? Gee, I don’t think so. Lofty, if not entirely contrived, constitutional justifications? Or, more likely, the relentless federal grasp for power and, today, a way to placate a host of environmental allies by denying the states and the country access to those climate-warming pollutants such as oil and gas.

Regarding the Enclave Clause, James Madison stated that “the public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.” But, have the courts sought the concurrence of the states? Nope.

Clearly, the federal government is occupying millions of acres without the “concurrence” of those states, but maintains their grip with the twisted and self-serving judicial sanction of federal Courts intent upon expanding and strengthening federal power.

So, what is the recourse of the several states? My opinion, which is shared by many other originalists, is that in keeping with the doctrine of state sovereignty, original intent and the 10th Amendment, states should simply legislatively assume title of all lands not being utilized by the federal government as specified in the Enclave Clause. Of course, to placate the courts and public opinion, states should first sue the federal government to acquire title. And since the states will not prevail in such a lopsided judicial struggle, they should then rightfully and unhesitatingly assert their 10th Amendment rights by immediately assuming direct ownership and control of what I have dubbed the “royal federal reserves” lying within their state boundaries.

But, do the chastened, weak-kneed, and heavily bribed states have the backbone to hazard the restoration of their constitutional sovereignty and honor? Ah, yes, that’s the burning question.

The constitutional issue aside for a moment, in truth the achievement of energy independence alone should provide ample motivation for the states and their people to step up and take back their land, which is illegally held by the feds. And should the states fail to assert their rights under the original constitution, they should quietly accept their bondage and compliantly move on with their drab, submissive lives.

“An injustice unchallenged is justice denied. “Author Unknown

“Nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to absurd or unjust consequences. “Abraham Lincoln (1861)

I just have to get this off my chest. It's been bugging me for years.

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

For the most part, this muddling has been intentional and has been perpetuated by the Left for the sole purpose of advancing its open-border political agenda. 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 corrupted term "illegal immigrant" which both adds to the confusion and serves to unfairly legitimize the status of an "illegal alien", aka "undocumented alien" and to de-legitimize a legal immigrant.

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--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 standpoint, all persons who enter the country may be correctly described as "migrants". Just as all citizens are not natural-born citizens, not all migrants 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, overstayers, undocumented aliens, illegal entrants.  Pass it on!

And to Justice Sonia Sotomayor who said she was "insulted" by the term "illegal immigrant", here are your choices when describing an entrant into this country: illegal entrant/illegal alien/undocumented alien OR legal entrant, refugee, asylee, non-immigrant, immigrant. Confusingly mixing and matching terms to accommodate your "feelings" or political predisposition is both irresponsible and ignorant. As a jurist, the LAW must trump your sensitivities.

That's it! Gee, I feel better already...

Sunday, February 2, 2014

"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 the 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 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.

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 the 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.â€

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 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.

Intuitively, I had always believed that the 2nd Amendment protected my inherent right to keep and bear arms for my own personal safety; that this right was derived from “natural law” irrespective of any right to same which may have been specifically granted or denied by either the United States or any of the States.

Further, I had always believed that since the federal government was not specifically granted the right to restrict my right to self-protection, that, in accordance with the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government did not have the right to in any way deny my right to self- protection; that, similarly, since the right to self-defense is an inherently natural right that no State could abridge or otherwise deny that right as well.

In light of the recent District of Columbia v Heller (2008) decision in which SCOTUS struck down DC’s handgun ban as well as its ban on loaded, operable firearms for DC residents’ self-defense and the McDonald v City of Chicago case which protected the right to keep and bear arms from infringement by local governments, my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to explore the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for myself.

Briefly, this is what the Heller decision said: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” and “that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” However, SCOTUS tempered its decision by allowing for “prohibitions against possession of weapons by felons or the mentally ill” or “carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”. In short, the Court ruled that the Amendment’s prefatory clause, i.e. “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, serves to clarify the operative clause, i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

The first thing I discovered is that quite apart from the supercilious and intrusive world of social engineers who continually advocate a wholesale ban on privately owned guns without any allusion to constitutional justification, over the years there really has been a serious and honest difference of opinion among respected constitutional scholars as to the precise meaning of the 2nd Amendment, a difference which the Heller and McDonald decisions finally resolved for every American. While Heller has affirmatively addressed the 2nd Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms who reside within federal territories, the McDonald ruling extended that right to the local and state levels.

But, first, let’s very briefly highlight some authoritative, albeit contradictory, case law on this subject before proceeding further:

1. Barron v Baltimore (1833): held that the Bill of Rights applies directly to the federal government—not to state governments. In effect, the court ruled that states could infringe on the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government. (Don’t ask. I didn’t delve deeply into the reasoning behind this decision.)

2. Nunn v State of Georgia (1846): held that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and that “the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon in the smallest degree.”

3. Cockrum v State of Texas (1859): ruled that “the right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the ‘high powers’ delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” (Clearly, at some variance with Barron v Baltimore.)

4. 14th Amendment (1868): to address the possible oppression of freed slaves following the civil war and to ensure that former slaves, among other citizens, were able to Keep and Bear Arms for that purpose, Congress passed this amendment which provides that states may not “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (If you can’t get there one way, try another route.)

5. The Slaughter-House Cases (1873): held that only those “privileges and immunities” that “owe their existence” to the US Constitution were protected; thus, the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states because the Bill of Rights protected basic human rights which existed before the ratification of the Constitution.

6. United States v Cruikshank (1876): clarified that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed before the Constitution but that the 2nd Amendment, indeed the 1st Amendment, were not protected from infringement by the states or by private individuals. (Here the court ignored the 14th Amendment and parroted Barron v Baltimore.)

7. Presser v Illinois (1886) and Miller v Texas (1894): held that the 2nd Amendment didn’t directly protect against infringement by the states.

8. People v Zerillo (Michigan, 1922): Ruled that “the provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”

9. Gitlow v New York (1925): ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibited states from violating some of the rights of citizens without “due process” but stopped short of “incorporating” all of the Bill of Rights at once.

10. Since Gitlow, and only on a case by case basis, courts have held that on the strength of the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Clause”, the Bill of Rights is protected against state infringement. In effect, the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” into the Due Process Clause vide the generally accepted Theory of Substantive Due Process. (Note: today, the 2nd Amendment is one of the last rights in the Bill of Rights to be incorporated.)

11. District of Columbia v Heller (2008): the court ruled that the Cruikshank decision failed to properly weigh 14th Amendment protections and that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

So, though most states protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, the McDonald v City of Chicago ensured that the full force of the 2nd Amendment extended to all localities as well. Particularly in those states where there are no state constitutional safeguards, plaintiffs are especially concerned. Without 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, gun owners are at the mercy of state legislators, social engineering lobbyists and the like.

But, what’s behind the McDonald challenge? In short, the Illinois state constitution states that “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” By failing to “incorporate” 14th Amendment inquiry as was required by Heller, in June 2009 the 7th Court of Appeals reaffirmed Illinois’ power to ban handguns by relying solely—and erroneously—on the Cruikshank decision of 1876, thereby ignoring nearly all other pertinent case law as well.

By contrast, earlier, in April 2009, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit (Nordyke v King) in California concluded that since “the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” that this right is, therefore, “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and applies to the states.” This decision was on hold awaiting a SCOTUS decision on the McDonald v City of Chicago case. Thus, we had two appellate courts and two divergent views in the same year. The earlier decision relied upon the 14th Amendment as required by Heller and the panel opinion relied upon Cruikshank which had been overruled by Heller. (How mortal jurists be?)

So, owing to the contradictory case law subsequent to the US Constitution’s adoption in 1787, I opted to simplify my inquiry by examining what our framers had to say about all this. Being the real experts, their correspondence and debates carry considerably more weight for me than do contemporary interpretations from either the left or the right.

First, the 2nd Amendment states that “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.”

Like all things constitutional, context is absolutely everything, and both logic and a studious level of caution dictate that the expressed intent of the framers should always take precedence over what might be faulty subsequent interpretation. And rather than weighing and examining a dizzying array of contradictory interpretations, I have found solace by relying upon an “originalist” approach to better capture the meaning of the framers in this regard. It just seems eminently more sensible and the least painful path to follow.

Bearing in mind Thomas Jefferson’s admonishment that “on every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”, any conclusions as to the framers’ intent and, thus, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, will be left to the objectivity and integrity of the reader.

From what I have read, the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check on the standing army and any foreign armies. To wit, Noah Webster and Tench Coxe, the latter an ally and correspondent of James Madison, admonished that “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” Similarly, George Mason warned that “the colonies’ recent experience with Britain”, in which King George’s goal had been “to disarm the people…was the best way to enslave them.”

Further, it appears that the overarching purpose of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution, was to better ensure private rights by specifically proscribing federal violations of those rights. Thus, in short, “well-regulated militia” did not at all mean Congressional regulation of that militia or, by extension, the regulation of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Also, the text of the Amendment expressly confirms that the right to keep and bear arms is retained “by the people”, and not the states. Important to note too is that whenever the word “regulate” appears within the Constitution’s text, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being regulated. However, in the 2nd Amendment the term “well regulated” describes a militia—not an army reserve or national guard--but does not define who or what regulates it. Thus, from what I could understand, the framers intended that the people comprise an essentially unorganized militia which may, of necessity, be organized and well regulated, but by the people themselves.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton (Federalist, No. 29): “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” Thus, it also appears to have been clearly intended by the framers that law-abiding armed citizens could collectively organize and train and that doing so would not necessarily pose a threat to their fellow citizens, but would, in fact, help “to ensure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defence”.

But, rather than further wading through a plethora of interesting, albeit esoteric, and often contradictory opinions let’s take a brief look at some notable quotes of the framers themselves to better understand their meaning and intent with respect to the 2nd Amendment. It’s just more edifying—for me anyway:

1. “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms…” Thomas Jefferson

2. “The people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state…” Pennsylvania Declaration of 1776

3. “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms.” James Madison, Federalist Paper #46

4. “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” John Adams, 1787

5. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” James Madison, 1789

6. “…the ultimate authority…resides in the people alone.” James Madison

7. “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe, 1788

8. “The militia, when properly formed,  are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788

9. “The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping and bearing arms.” Samuel Adams, 1788

10. “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788

11. “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton

12. “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Thomas Jefferson

13. “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

14. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence…To ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference…When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” George Washington

While there are also many luminaries, like Einstein, Machiavelli, Ayn Rand, Blackstone, et. al, who celebrate the individual right to keep and bear arms, there are notable detractors as well:

1. “Gun registration is not enough; the most effective way of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian population.” Janet Reno. Atty General, 1991

2. “Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, 1994

3. “…Our ultimate goal—total control of all guns—is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal.” Nelson Shields, Handgun Control

4. “What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.” Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, 1994

5. “Citizens! Turn in your weapons.” (English translation of Soviet Union poster 1919.)

FYI: Current US Code defines militia like this: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age. The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard, and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members in the militia who are not members of the National Guard.” Title 10, Section 311(a) of the United States Code.

And, finally, no discussion of the 2nd Amendment can be properly wrapped up without this incisive quote from Thomas Jefferson: “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary of trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evil, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man…”

So, there you have it. Shouldn't the Framers’ understanding of the 2nd Amendment be rendered more authoritative than the stream of conspicuously contradictory legal opinions which followed over the years? The age-old controversy. As said, for me the Framers’ clearly stated opinions as to their meaning and intent necessarily hold sway.

POSTSCRIPT:

Currently under serious assault by Progressives at both the federal and state levels, the inviolabilty of the 2nd Amendment hangs in the balance. Pushback is widespread, and already there are hundreds of Sheriffs who refuse to obey these unconstitutional infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many States have taken action to nullify federal gun control laws. Stay tuned. This could get very messy.