The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

Restoring state sovereignty

Don Hank

The San Bernardino terror and the ease with which two jihadi killers entered and took up permanent residence in the US show that the US is putting US citizens in harm’s way.

Look, Folks, the solution is right in front of us and its name is state sovereignty.

Large central governments controlling large swaths of territory comprised of regions with people holding different political opinions and different cultures are an evil in themselves, because ultimately, a small group grabs all the power via “education” and the msm and produces a situation for the people that threatens life and basic freedoms.

Central government is the culprit here, and Europe is instructive. The EU has grabbed virtually total political power over European nations. Yet now that the EU is insisting on opening its borders to Muslim refugees in defiance of the will of the people and the nations, there are nations that defy them refusing to open their borders, such as initially Hungary, and later, at least partially, the Balkan countries,and now even Sweden, the country with the most open-border policy of all Europe. Under duress, European nations are rediscovering their sovereignty.

It’s not that the EU lacks laws to stop them, but it has no real power over them in cases where the exercise of such power threatens the security and liberty of the nations. They can’t enforce laws that are patently bad.

Our US states are analogous to these EU nations and their dire situation is also analogous. Our states do have a God-given right to sovereignty when the central government literally harms the citizens of the states as they are doing now with Obama’s resettlement of Syrian refugees and his policies of amnesty and open borders, all by fiat. Every American must know that no law that forces a people to harm itself can be Constitutional, regardless of whatever the Supreme Court says. The imported jihadis themselves are bringing this to light as they did in San Bernardino.

Eventually, our US states will be forced to do what Hungary and its copycats did and close their borders.

Here is what should be done now and will be done once enough Americans have died:

States that no longer wish to commit suicide will decide who enters their territory. If a person, even a US citizen, tries to enter a state, they may be denied entry on the basis of background checks. If they entered the US illegally, they may be barred — even if Washington gave them citizenship, because the state may decide whether this person was entitled to that based on the security concerns of the state. The states must be keenly aware that the Feds have overstepped their bounds as defined by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution (see below). If a person desirous of entering a state has entered the US illegally, then the state may deny them entry on those grounds, legitimately claiming that the federal government exceeded the powers granted to it under the Constitution.

Naturally, the Supreme Court will declare the state’s position un-Constitutional. However, we must examine the European model to see what can be accomplished regardless of the wishes of central-government agencies, such as the Supreme Court, which today is nothing but an interest group defending the Washington cabal and no longer represents the people of the US. Again, taking our cue from Europe, the EU government has declared, under the Schengen Agreement, that no EU nation may close its border except under specific extraordinary circumstances that threaten the country in question. However, initially, when the Hungarians closed the border, the requisites defined by Brussels may not actually have been met for this closing. However, the Hungarians, the Balkan countries and Sweden did not beg the EU dictators in Brussels for help in securing their borders or seek legal recourse. They simply resorted to their sovereign right to self-determination, bypassing the EU, and made it clear that this is the way it is going to be. Brussels made noises that they would be punished, but nothing happened. In a revolutionary move, Budapest (like the capitals of the other renegade nations that followed suit) faced down Brussels and won, at least for now, thereby restoring its sovereignty and providing for its own security. Indeed, in so doing, it caused the other above-cited nations to take notice and still others seem poised to do the same. EU officials are now warning of a potential collapse of the EU, and although dire consequences are elicited by the cunning EU officials, there could be no better solution. The same can happen in the US, with states declaring a state of emergency following a mass jihadi murder, and while the US could bluster and threaten, if the state stood firm, there would be little Washington could do short of civil war.

If a person is from a terror exporting country and has entered the US after a certain age, say, 15, then they can be denied entry into a state based on the fact that their country of origin is a terror exporting country. If it can be proved that they are not SUNNIS, then the state may allow their entry. ONLY the SUNNIS are pursuing jihad (where do we read that in our PC press? Even Trump ignores this fact).  Whether this is “constitutional” or not is irrelevant. The state must stand firm or perish. Indeed, the grounds for doing so could be a declaration of state-level emergency or even a claim that the state is at war (with jihadis, for example), whatever it takes.

The legal grounds for state-level initiatives are clear:

Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.

The clear-cut grounds for the states to ignore US statues are that the US has failed to protect the states from invasion and/or domestic violence — as it actually did by admitting the San Bernardino jihadis into our country — and if the Supreme Court makes excuses for the jihad-sponsoring government, then it too must be defied on the simple grounds that it too is blatantly ignoring the above-cited clause. A grave risk to the people of the state is always legitimate grounds to ignore federal orders because no government can demand that its own people commit suicide. Everything depends on the will of the people to survive and to know and understand their God-given rights to life and liberty.

This restoration of basic state sovereignty could either happen now at the discretion of states with security minded populations or – based on the European model — it will happen spontaneously when it becomes clear that this kind of security is vital to keep the population safe from imminent harm. For now, there are enough libertarians and leftist liberals to convince the sheeple of most states that the absurd borderless-world ideology trumps security.

But once a critical mass of terrorist murders has been reached, there will be a spontaneous and unstoppable movement to secure our people, with or without the approval of our terror-supporting federal government, and the states will be at the forefront.

Trying to replace our corrupt central government with people who actually care about our nation’s security will fail as a permanent remedy, just as it has failed in Europe. A Trump presidency may be a vital stop-gap measure, but in fact, given the fickle nature of national political sentiment, only the individual states can provide for their security in the long run.

Sooner or later we will learn the valuable lesson that the states have the right to self-determination and only need to reclaim it. Those that lose this right to the federal government do so voluntarily by surrendering their sovereignty, ie, wrongly taking federal statues and their interpretation by a corrupt and ideology-driven Supreme Court – rather than We the People — as supreme. The number of dead Americans that lead us to that awakening depends on how soon our states respond to the threat.

Do you agree or disagree with the above analysis? Post your response at the forum below.

Further reading

http://conpats.blogspot.com/2014/02/chuck-kolb-02162014.html

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141110

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

A day of reckoning is coming

by Don Hank

A recent article by Bob Unruh in WND shows how states are fighting back against federal encroachment – in the case in question, by declaring themselves unwilling to comply with federal detention orders under NDAA. This quiet revolution is merely an extension of other local and state muscle flexing, such as the pushback in Arizona by the state legislature and by Sheriff Arpaio, and the tough anti-invasion law in Alabama.

But I think this could be just the beginning.

The federal government has created a network of vested interests to keep the states in line, all long after the writing of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, designed to prevent federal abuses. The biggest club they have created is grants to states. Every state gets millions of your and my money, duly shrunken after passing through the sticky fingers of Congress. This money is nothing more than a bribe, a cheap trick to make states grovel and behave like good little slaves. It has worked well thus far. And the money club is not the only weapon in the federal arsenal in its war on the states and the citizens. Obama has shown that states who fail to fall in line behind the dictator in chief don’t get needed non-monetary aid either. Texas, always a renegade stand-alone state, recently watched as its forests were reduced to cinders for lack of much-needed federal help, which eventually arrived after it was rather late.

Arizona saw a lawsuit filed against it by the lawyer in chief, who even went crying to the UN to help subdue the big bad Brewer. And some of the lower southern states found that, after they had sullied Big Daddy Washington, the illegal alien criminals and hit-and-run perps it turned in to ICE were no longer being dealt with. Some came back and killed and raped. That was the states’ payback for not liking the jackboot.

But what if:

What if the states turned the tables on the feds?

I mean, where did this federal money and power come from in the first place?

Why the people of the various and sundry states who pay taxes.

Now, what if the good people of the abused states got together and made a law that prohibited state citizens from paying the entire amount of the federal taxes in those instances when the feds were playing these dirty games? What if they were enjoined to withhold a certain percentage or a set amount corresponding to an estimate of the losses incurred?

What if the states calculated the amount of money it would take to incarcerate lawbreakers who were allowed by the feds to sneak into their state and cause trouble? And what if the states explicitly deducted this amount from the amount their state citizens were bound to pay to the feds?

What if they made it illegal for citizens of that state to pay the federal tax amount that, according to the calculations of the state comptroller generals, was owed them by the feds for dereliction of duty?

Suppose they calculated that X number of illegal aliens had entered their state as a direct result of the federal government’s failure to station an adequate number of border guards and provide them with the necessary equipment and training, and further, as a partial result of their hamstringing them with unreasonable rules of engagement and jailing those who failed to comply with said unreasonable rules.

Suppose they calculated the amount of damage to the state of improperly providing federal aid to people who repeatedly built their homes in areas repeatedly stricken by natural disasters — and then billed the feds for this?

Suppose they calculated the probable number of Mexicans fleeing their homes and entering their state due to AG Holder’s dirty game of Fast and Furious and the amount of money and human life this probably cost in that state?

Suppose they collected this money by the same method, forbidding their citizens to pay this amount to the fed and funneling it to state coffers instead.

And suppose some of the non-border states used a percentage of this money saved to help border states beef up their border security and pay for the detention and return of illegal alien criminals.

And suppose they blew off any unconstitutional and arbitrary federal laws in their state affairs that “prohibited” them from returning illegal aliens on their own? Without the intermediary of ICE, for example. A series of contiguous states could set up a kind of reverse “Underground Railroad” to return criminal aliens to Mexico.

Now, certainly some will say this is carrying things a bit too far.

Oh really?

Did you know what Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says? Read it for yourself:

 … and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

The extent of the invasion of Mexican cartels is a well kept secret.

But there are numerous credible reports by people living in the border area showing that some areas are no longer safe for Americans to enter or live.

The Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona has areas that are closed off because the cartel has completely taken them over.

These situations fit anyone’s definition of an invasion. And the damage done by Latin gangs and drug dealers everywhere is certainly domestic violence, all traceable to a porous southern border, thanks to a negligent central government itching for a come-uppance.

The US Constitution is a contract between the States and Washington. In all of contract law, there is give and take. (Contracts with only “take” are deemed unlawful, as in the case of prenups). Each of the parties to the contract is both beneficiary and provider of rights. Whenever one party reneges on part of the contract, the counterparty who is hurt by this has a right to deny a corresponding part of its contribution to the bargain.

The states have not reneged in any way. They are a compliant partner. The US government, on the other hand, has completely reneged on parts of its contract — particularly its duty to protect the States against invasion but also with regard to undeclared — and hence unlawful — wars against countries that are not an enemy in any traditionally accepted respect, or the NDAA, which permits the federal government to detain Americans without charges or evidence. It must expect consequences, and if it won’t hold up its part of the agreement, then at least part of the agreement intended to benefit it is null and void by law.

There are 2 main things keeping the States as a counterparty from declaring part of the bargain null and void despite flagrant federal breach of contract:

1—Lack of knowledge of the law and how it applies to the parties.

2—Lack of will.

It is only a matter of time before all the states affected by the Federal government’s failure to perform its duty will understand that they are on the right side of the law and the fed is clearly in non-performance of its contract.

And in our economic crisis, as states find themselves increasingly strapped for cash, laying off employees, halting public works and closing down offices, they will eventually reach a point of desperation when a strategy such as I have outlined above will appear, if not attractive, then at least inevitable.

Is the fake birth certificate REALLY my fault?

It’s all my fault the birth certificate is fake. At least that’s what my critics apparently think.

by Don Hank

Yesterday I told my friends to hold off on sending me emails because I have a big project to deal with. But as usual, something gigantic happened in the news: Obama revealed his “birth certificate,” which was quickly debunked as a fake by computer graphics experts. I sent out alerts to my usual list to a very short piece I wrote showing incontrovertible evidence that the new “birth certificate” touted by Obama on the White House site is fake. The article included a video made and narrated by an expert on computer graphics who showed why it is fake. It was disarmingly easy to understand. Nothing very technical.

Then for those die-hards who don’t believe anything unless it has the Mainstream Media or White House seal of approval on it, I included a simple test that people can use to convince themselves.

I actually did hear from some of the brighter stars on my correspondence list how they too suspected the doc was a fake and they agreed with me.

But I got a surprisingly large number of complaints that this whole thing had gone too far and it was obvious I was to blame for dragging America away from the implementation of Obama’s utopian agenda. In addition, many complained it was simply too technical for them to grasp. They could hear the words but they couldn’t comprehend them.

The message was clear: people were tired of this game and they wanted to talk about more substantive issues.

But wait. Wasn’t that the Democrat argument?

If you had just perpetrated a gigantic hoax on the US public, wouldn’t you want to divert attention away from it by telling them it was not important and that America has better things to do than to worry about whether the president of the United States is actually qualified to hold that office and whether he was perpetrating childish hoaxes by photo-shopping an obviously fake birth certificate?

Let me point out the obvious, again.

Obama’s latest caper is so childish, so sophomoric, so lacking in brains and so obviously a hoax that even a child can see through it, and if that isn’t some of the biggest news of the century, then I can’t imagine what is.

In political terms, this means that if the same people who put so much energy into the “where’s the birth certificate” campaign were to hold out just a little longer, the usurper would be so discredited only a tiny handful would vote for him in 2012. After all, who wants a president who is obviously misleading them, and bankrupting their country to boot?

But America blinked, and that blink was tantamount to Washington giving up at the signing of the peace treaty with England.

Imagine if George Washington had gone to the signing, pen in hand, ready to accept England’s capitulation, and after drinking a glass of champagne with his troops, tossed his official copy of the Treaty of Paris into the waste can and said, “ah, ya know what? It’s time to put this whole thing behind us and start a new chapter. Tell King George he can keep ruling us. I just need to rest.”

“But Sir, many of us sacrificed our lives and fortunes to defeat this tyrant…”

“My good man, we have more important things to do than to insult the King.”

“But we thought you agreed that he was a tyr…”

“Enough! There are much more important things to do than to accuse poor King George of ruling us unfairly. Why, there’s new taxes to be levied and a government to be set up.”

“Taxes to be levied? But by whom, Sir?”

“By the King, who else would be qualified to levy them? Someone must pay for the costs of this dreadful war and raising taxes is the best way.”

“But Sir, with all due respect, we don’t think the King has any authority over Americans any more now that we have won the war.”

“Well, I will soon be the King’s governor and I will decide whether he has authority over us.”

Some ending, huh?

Yet Obama, who has declared war on the American way of life, on our freedoms and our values in so many ways, has just handed us a clear unmitigated victory — by uploaing an obviously fake photo-shopped birth certificate onto the White House site — and we are doing precisely what my fictitious Washington did, ceding victory to the enemy, pretending that he is worthy to lead us. For the first time, in a long and arduous battle, we have just glimpsed victory — an obvious hoax perpetrated by the putative president of the US — and instead of seizing the day and declaring it for what it is, we have absurdly thrown in the towel to the obvious loser!  And the theoretical George Washington in my story is the GOP and the RINO lineup we face in 2012, all of whom have aided and abetted him in this sordid affair.

But you know, winners don’t behave like these fair-weather patriots. My kids tell me that accomplished musicians put in sometimes 10 hours a day practicing.

Can you imagine a talented singing star practicing for years and dreaming of making the big time, and then a week before the big stage appearance in the already sold-out concert guaranteed to make his career, suddenly saying, “ya know, I need a week off. I’m tired of all this practice, practice, practice. The h— with it! Let someone else take my place.”

That is America today.

After all the lies about the birth certificate, the fake document foisted on a gullible public, the insults to our intelligence, instead of blaming the architect of all this misery, gullible ADD suffering Americans turn on the ones who see the emperor is naked. These tag-alongs don’t really care who rules them or whether we have a Republic or not. They just wanted to keep up the appearance of being patriots who care about their country — when it’s convenient.

I know I am addressing a dwindling audience of the faithful here, and you are the precious few who won’t give up because you know what is at stake and how important the truth is — not the contrived, fabricated truth of the media and Ruling Class, but the absolute, objective truth, the truth we get at by using the only known method for accessing truth: the scientific method of inquiry and unbiased examination of the data, which we scrapped a while back in favor of consensus (post-modernism) — the uninformed public now decides, based on what they’ve been told by the Ruling Class. We traded our birthright for a facile truth, which is synonymous with lie, and we’re ok with that.

But be forewarned: if America can’t earn her birthright — her right to freedom — then she most certainly doesn’t deserve it.

As for the rest, I don’t know about you, but I see victory dead ahead, and if you don’t want to pick yourself up and claim it, well, tell ya what: Uncork yourself another brew and sit yourself down to another exciting episode of American Idol (woopie!). You may not have a job tomorrow, but who cares? We working stiffs will carry you.

Meanwhile, my friends and I – diehards who just can’t seem to say goodbye to the American experiment and hello to the USSA — will carry you to the goal post and we will still win this war.

Because real Americans don’t give up.

PS: I have had this theory since first seeing the new botched BC construct. What if a person who has been screwed by Obama offered as a “friend” to make a perfect birth certificate using a BC from Hawaii dating to around that same time. He starts with a doc signed by a doc of that hospital and uses just the signature and a few other little items. But this guy is not a true friend of Obama’s, just a prankster who likes mischief (all leftists do), and he decides to stick it to his “friend” and design it so that the doc downloaded from the internet comes apart in layers. I am sorry, but I have trouble believing this was not on purpose, and I also can’t believe Obama made it look this suspicious just to stick his finger in our eye.

There is something else going on here! Watch for it.

PPSS: One of the commenters said that “the pattern is too seamless.” I finally understand what they meant. If you look at the left hand part of the document that seems to be bent inward, as though cut away but yet somehow maintaining continuity with the text field (as if this were possible! — looks like a trompe l’oeuil painting), you see that the green print pattern does not follow the contour of the bent-away portion. Absurdly, it just goes straight across. Apparently the WH made some sort of lame excuse for all this tampering and the layering, and the apparent use of character recognition software, but that is all the more evidence that it is not a true copy. BTW, an old doc on good paper in a book does not fade appreciably because the pages are not exposed to the air and hence do not oxidize or chemically degrade appreciably. And if the characters were hard to recognize, the character recognition s/w would not recognized them better than the human eye, so there would seem to be no sensible reason for using it.

ANOTHER SITE ANALYZING THE BC:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2527481

JUST IN. THIS IS THE MOST COMPLETE DEBUNKING OF THE “BC” THAT I HAVE SEEN:

http://tomkovach.us/CB-4v1/2011/04/709/

Administration’s inaction criminal and impeachable

Constitution: Obama guilty of treason, must be impeached

By Don Hank

I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona

by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.

I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.

This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.

Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:

 “Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”

The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Further, and more directly:

The administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him, must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.

This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.

It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.

Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.

When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.

Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:

“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.”

The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.

Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.

Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.

The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.

And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.

The government is not about to protect us from invasion without a significant change, and that change starts with education on the grassroots level. No significant steps toward securing our nation will be taken until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.

Cartel seizing US assets, with tacit consent of US government

by Don Hank

Today I sent out the following link to a report showing how one American ranch and its occupants (one of many) were physically threatened by dangerous criminals due to inaction on the part of the Obama government – inaction that, if it occurred on a local level, would immediately be seen as criminal. The fact that it is criminal on any level will not be missed by rational, thinking people. (BTW, there is a pattern here: The DOJ has recently been shown to refuse to prosecute perpetrators on the basis of their race).

I sent the link with this message:

The below-linked report was written by an Iraq war returnee. It contains foul language, but is so full of truth it can’t be ignored.

Conclusion:

We need to get control of our border.

To do that, we need to get control of our treacherous government.

Failing that, armed volunteers need to go to these ranches en masse and help protect what is ours.

http://bigpeace.com/pdollard/2010/09/24/american-rancher-x-part-2/

Don Hank

 

Shortly thereafter, I received the following message from a friend whose work I am familiar with. This man, by the way, does not publish and should not be confused with anyone who has recently been published either in this forum or elsewhere.

Quote from that message:

“So, when our representatives say that ANYONE can have access to this nation, to its people, property, and information, what does that say about their opinion of us?

And my friend, doing nothing to stop it is doing nothing to protect us, which is the same thing as actively allowing it.”

 

FWIW

My I offer some thoughts in this regard?

As you know, I have been in the “protection” field for over a quarter century and am professionally educated and credentialed in that field.  

At its most basic, things that are to be protected, assets for want of a better term, fall into 3 categories:  people, property, and information.   These can range from a single person or a dignitary to an entire population; from a single item of property to a building or a nation, etc.

Now here is the rule:  90% of protecting anything, no matter what, is access control, making sure that only the right people have access to the valued asset and likewise, making sure that the wrong people don’t.  

There is ALWAYS a security-convenience trade off.  That is the cost of it and these are opposite ends of a continuum.  As one moves along that continuum toward one, there is motion away from the other.  If one wants more security, less convenience is the cost, and vice versa.

Further, effective protection is in layers, or progressively more stringent “rings of protection,” actual physical, psychological, or procedural barriers that a person must negotiate before they gain access.  And these rings have objectives.

The basic strategy for designing a protective system is to include 4 basic goals—the 4 D’s:  deter, detect, delay, defend / deny. 

In other words, any system wants to DETER the “wrong” person from even attempting access in the first place by raising the chances that they will get caught and pay a price for it.  While we cannot change the value of the asset they are trying to gain access to, we can do much to change the cost of attempting access, and the likelihood of having to pay it.  Deterrence is THE first step, and a major one.

We also want out system to be able to immediately DETECT an attempted or accomplished breech in our protection (i.e. deterrence did not work) at the outermost  perimeter ring (i.e. property, border, wall, etc).  We then want to DELAY the person with other barriers of some kind, until a human response can be mustered to the breech site, and finally, we must DEFEND the asset-i.e. DENY access to it in a physical confrontation if need be.

This is NOT rocket science.  But, no matter what anyone says, until the basic decision to control access is made, and the cost of it paid, there IS NO, AND CAN BE NO, SECURITY FOR THAT ASSET, period.  OPEN ACCESS MEANS NO SECURITY!

Personally, there is also an inescapable corollary implied in access control:

How we define “the right person” to be granted access is based on the value of the asset to the owner.  The greater the value, the greater the inconvenience that will be tolerated in countermeasures, and the greater the required trustworthiness for persons to be granted access.   It is based on value, not cost, but value in the mind of the owner.

So, when our representatives say that ANYONE can have access to this nation, to its people, property, and information, what does that say about their opinion of us?

And my friend, doing nothing to stop it is doing nothing to protect us, which is the same thing as actively allowing it.

Revolution USA, repeat history with a twist

by Don Hank

A look back at the French revolution reveals many surprising commonalities with today’s situation in America.

Yet, if the Tea Party Revolution succeeds, it will not be due to a revolutionary mindset as best described by Olavo de Carvalho (my review; full text). It will be the opposite, but with a similar historical lead-up and tactics ( hopefully with less bloodshed).

The main factors in both revolutions are:

Economic

Intellectual

Spiritual

Political

One of the main factors in the French Revolution was an economic one: worldwide famine caused by a weather anomaly. What later came to be known as the Little Ice Age contributed mightily to the timing of the revolution, as detailed by Brian Fagan.

In our case, while there is no famine, there is a shrinking economy, and a looming double-dip recession or even a full-blown depression, as predicted by economist Paul Krugman. Many realize government policy actually caused the initial failure of banks and the consequent economic slide. Most do not.

Regardless of the origin of this current economic malaise, it will eventually parallel the situation in France in 1788/9. Already, the number of unemployment recipients is staggering and is further gnawing at our national treasury, just as the excesses of Louis XV and XVI gnawed at and eventually drained, France’s treasury.

Added to this in France was the intellectual factor, i.e., the wide circulation of the ideas of the enlightenment, which generally called for equality among all people, undermining the notion of divine right of the nobility. In fact, the successful American Revolution added fuel to this equality movement.

But the American Revolution also contributed in a political way to the revolution: In an attempt to vindicate his father’s waste of national funds in the unsuccessful Seven Years War against traditional enemy Britain, Louis XV, Louis XVI, the incompetent king and husband of Marie Antoinette, decided to help the Americans in their war with Britain. Success in that war did not translate into political success for Louis XVI, however, because the aid the French had sent us bankrupted France and further undermined the King’s authority and popularity. Other political factors include the popularity of revolutionary-minded Minister Jacques Neckar and of Maximilien Robespierre. The former’s dismissal gave more fuel to the movement while the latter’s oratory inspired the people to revolt.

It bodes ill for Michelle Obama that her extravagant vacations and leisure life are garnering her the monicker “Michelle Antoinette” – even among Democrats.

It is intriguing that the scenario of the French Revolution is now being turned upside down:

Economically, while most of the ills caused by the government in France were unrelated to the will of the public, the ills in our country were by consent of the governed, who foolishly installed politicians imbued with Keynesian economic ideas. A close look at globalist G.W. Bush, son of globalist George Bush Sr., would have shown us this flaw in his character. Obama, obviously driven by leftwing ideology, could scarcely have been expected to reject the idea of bailouts for banks and businesses, which then could be controlled by the government. This amassing of power in the hands of globalists and Marxists was accomplished by stealth, but it was ultimately the uncritical masses who chose them.

Intellectually, while the ideas that bolstered the French Revolution were strictly leftist revolutionary, the ideas of the Tea Party, promulgated by media personalities and a few politicians, and increasingly, by bloggers and internet activists, are spreading and causing a new kind of movement that could best be called antirevolutionary, if we accept the definition of the Revolution as set down by revolutionaries themselves over the centuries (again, I refer to the masterful work by Olavo de Carvalo).

Spiritually, the French revolution marked an upsurge in the religion of humanism, which has held for centuries, while the tea party revolution marks a turn toward traditional Christian values and beliefs that the French would call “reactionary.” It is no exaggeration to call humanism a religion in this context. The spiritual descendants of Voltaire include Sartre, Camus and a host of artists dedicated to proselytizing for atheistic humanism. A look at French cinema (works like “Jean de Florette,” “The Stranger” and “Madame Bovary,” for example) make this fanatical missionary spirit abundantly clear. Meanwhile, in America, the new heretics, like Jim Wallis and wishy-washy feel-good, “cool” pastors are being rejected for what Americans see as the “real thing,” solid men of God dedicated to the winning of souls from perdition.

Politically, the situation is similar between France then and the US today. The National Assembly in the 1780s had been at loggerheads with the King over issues like equality of taxation (only the commoners were taxed, nobility and clergy were exempted). It was the people against the tyrant at the top. Today we see the will of the people in Arizona, for example, being thwarted by the heavy hand of Obama and an activist court.  In reaction to the general perception of such tyranny, the true patriot tea party candidates (as distinct from the GOP-led imitations) are overthrowing incumbents in many elections. The GOP establishment, even with endorsements from once-popular heavy hitters like Sara Palin and Jan Brewer, is no longer able to sell their wishy-washy candidates at face value. Given the economic climate, the established church is no longer able to sell open borders and amnesty to their parishioners. Even popular icon Ann Coulter can’t pied-piper her followers into accepting a coalition with the homosexual agenda. The establishment is slowly cracking.

Conservatives and libertarians are forming a natural coalition and spreading the ideas of liberty and constitutional government but without the leftwing claptrap.

It is too early to predict anything, but the climate is right for a revolution that is, like the first American Revolution, not a revolution at all but rather a return to common sense, natural law and the God of our fathers.

Is “gay marriage” a historical imperative?

by Don Hank

According to expert testimony before the House in 1963, the 26th of the “Current Communist Goals” was:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

My recent response to the court decision by a homosexual judge in California supposedly making any ban on “gay marriage” unconstitutional received a deluge of of responses, including some expressing gay rage at my refusal to accept the use of the word “marriage” appied to same-sex relationships. (Check out the comments section under the article “Same-sex marriage? There’s no such thing”).

Some suggested I was a Nazi, others a bigot, still others a hater. It was the same old Gramscian tactics that the Left has used for over 100 years, showing an almost complete lack of reflection and no palpable originality.

In the last comment, a poster, who calls himself a “Christian” and apparently wants to pass as a “conservative,” said:

“Of course, the rest of society has moved on [emphasis added], and we pretty much look at them [anyone opposing ‘gay marriage’] with a mixture of pity and revulsion, but hey, it is their right.”

So the work of a single judge activist is proof that “society has moved on”?

In fact the people of California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, voted for Proposition 8, which makes “gay marriage” illegal. So what is going on?

Let me try to explain.

This activist is portraying “gay” marriage as a historical imperative.

Hegel’s concept of the historical imperative found its first application in communism by the founders of that ideology. It is an example of the Left’s inversion of all things. If you are an ordinary person, you look at history objectively in logical chronological sequence, from past to present. Not the Leftist. He sees history’s starting point in the future utopia that he imagines. For him, all recorded history must meet one criterion: It must show unequivocally that all of history is marching toward a great egalitarian revolution, where all are equal. It is inevitable and the history books must be revised to reflect this “fact.” “Gay marriage” is an important stepping stone in the quest for this revolutionary “equality” or “social justice.”

But do utopians really ever bring about equality and social justice?

The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, all reflect the opposite. There, the leaders pursued lifestyles of great opulence, living in palaces and feasting daily as the masses either starved or lived hand to mouth. In the Ukraine, under Stalin, for example, at least 10 million were killed, mostly by starvation. Still more were starved to death in China under Mao.

The closer any country comes to the dreamed-of “Utopia,” the further from equality it gets.

Of course, the above examples are restricted to the hardline communists, who, thanks to the unlimited power they enjoyed, had no need to use victim groups to get votes. But the same principle applies to soft Marxism of the kind that prevails in Europe and the US, where interest groups (like homosexuals) are seen as crucial to acquiring power. You need only look at Michelle Obama’s taxpayer-funded trip to Spain or Nancy Pelosi’s fabulously expensive taxpayer-funded airliner to see that the Western world is destined for an impoverishment of the middle class that may rival — or even exceed — that of hardline communist nations. You will get even poorer and the politically well-placed will get wealthy beyond measure. Our world financial and economic crises are a result of wealth distribution under “soft” Marxism. Yet our elites continue to borrow for ineffective Keynesian “stimulus” programs that transfer the wealth of the middle class to rich bankers, and will continue to do so as long as we close our eyes to the unconstitutionality of this plundering of our resources. (The elites confuse us by reminding that the “conservative” G.W. Bush also promoted such practices as lending to the insolvent and “stimulus” programs. Recruiting false conservatives into the Marxist game plays a key role in the subterfuge. “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron is playing this role in the UK, where he promised voters to hold a referendum on EU membership and then reneged on that promise. And in case you missed it, the “conservative”Ann Coulter has recently taken her place in the ranks of the cultural Marxist campaign, promoting “gay marriage,” thereby ensuring her place in a leftward-evolving GOP).

In other words, the “historical imperative” that the above-quoted homosexual activist alludes to, and his disdain for counter-revolutionary traditionalists like me (regarding conservatives with “pity and revulsion”), are a sign of a great inequality that is to come, one that is cynically expected to be a utopia.

Let me further clarify: The homosexual agenda we see proceeding apace before us is not, on the surface, the kind of economic Marxism we saw (or see) in Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. It is something more subtle and insidious but with the same intent – namely, Fabian Marxism, which is a stealth revolution that is intended to eventually usher in economic Marxism later on once power is consolidated in the hands of the Left. Now if this “historical imperative” – the inevitability of the Marxist revolution – were possible, then the question is: why did it not happen a long time ago?

The first known Utopian screed appeared almost 2,500 years ago. It was written by none less than Plato. The first Utopian experiment was in 4th Century Persia and it failed ignominiously for the same reason all such experiments fail: no one wanted to work.

There were utopian movements from the 13th Century on in the Dark Ages and on through the Renaissance and beyond. They played crucial roles in the great wars of the time. All of them failed.

The French Revolution touted égalité, among other things. It follows that today’s France is very accepting of same-sex “marriage.” Yet today, there is scarcely a more economically skewed society, with government employees receiving vastly  more income and perks than workers in the private economy. And, of course, as in all “egalitarian” Utopias, there is a vanishing trend in work performed by this privileged class, while the less-fortunate private-economy workers earn less and less in terms of real wages, corrected for cost of living.

It is quite possible that eventually, the masses will be dumbed-down and propagandized to the point of no return, relinquishing the little freedom that remains, and learn to accept the unacceptable. A quick look at the sociocultural reality of Europe is a glimpse of our future, barring unforeseen circumstances.

But if past revolutions are a viable indicator, then the activists themselves will be the main recipients of the unintended consequences of their own actions.

Already, the first “gay” divorces have been examples of wealth redistribution, with the richer of the 2 being forced to relinquish a significant proportion of their income and property to the other.

It is to be expected that some of these “beneficiaries” of the homosexual revolution will eventually look back longingly at the days of traditional marriage and its defenders.

I for one will be looking at them not with revulsion, but with pity.

Challenging the redefiners and their enablers

by John Haskins

In addition to challenging the redefinition, as Don Hank suggests, we have to challenge the redefiners themselves, especially the ones on “Our Side.” 

We have to identify relentlessly — and as fiercely as Jesus would — the spirit of lazy, sloppy smug, unconscious capitulation.  There is a tragic underlying cause behind this decades-long, and still unrelenting, thoughtless, stubborn, compulsive, even prideful capitulation to the redefinitions offered to us by Satan that have made our “leaders,” pundits and lawyers into very effective servants of the revolutionary left, despite their own certainty that they are heroic, principled, clear-minded defenders of the law and all that the law was meant to protect against the ravages of barbarism. 

For several decades the barbarism that has defeated all our efforts even before they began is the barbarism of the civilized, the clean-cut, “whitewashed tomb” conservative, the sometimes devoutly religious “conservative” elites dripping with professional hubris and imagined moral authority. But not only the “leaders, lawyers and writers and radio personalities.  Yes, it’s also the grassroots on “Our Side.” 

Jesus “got it.”  He was not fooled by the external appearance of a godly people united against the Greek, and Roman pagan barbarians closing in on all sides.  He exposed the hypocrisy and willful blindness of the supposed people of God and their scribes (writers), religious leaders and experts in the law.  That’s why they hated Him.  That is why Jesus, like the prophets of the Old Testament, had to be killed by the self-proclaimed servants of God.  Jesus got to the heart of the matter.  He had to be taken out so the spotlight could be put back on the other barbarians, the pagan ones.

These devastatingly destructive redefinitions of legal terminology and of reality itself are actually just the symptom of the true disease.  They are manifestations of the great heresy of our age, sometimes called the “Prosperity Gospel,” which has permeated almost the entire “church” and includes even the vast majority of the believers who criticize the “Prosperity Gospel” as theology.  To adapt the famous saying by Nixon about Keynesianism, “We’re all Prosperity Gospel adherents now,” in the way we live and think. 

That’s why Alliance Defense Fund, Jay Sekulow’s ACLJ, Mat Staver’s Liberty Scoundrels, Tony Perkins’ Family Research Scoundrels, Hocus Pocus On the Scamily, Wendy Wright’s Concerned Wimps for Amerika, Wildmon’s Amerikan Scamily Association, National Right to Make a lot of Money On Abortion Activism and their allied groups will continue sucking every last dollar out of their donor base until their base either has died off or is in concentration camps wondering when Jay Sekulow, Tony Perkins, ADF, the Heritage Foundation and Focus On the Scamily leaders will score a major victory and get them out.  “Folks, we have to fight this out in the courts!” shouts Sekulow on national radio, as he gives out the call-in number for donations which will go to fuel the private jet, the Maserati, and the real estate for his family.  Focus on the family, right?”

Their endless surrendering of terminology, “Our Side’s” blind, stubborn, smugly inflexible use of terms of propaganda ingeniously provided for us by Satan via the always generous revolutionary Left —  and the resulting obliteration of legal and other concepts are merely symptomatic of a deep pathology. 

There’s a horrible surrender underway. It has been under way for several decades.   And it’s being carried out by the very same “pro-family” “pro-life” and “conservative” leaders, pundits and “legal experts” who make their living “defending life religious freedom, parents’ rights, freedom of speech and constitutional self-government.  It does no good to expose just the redefinitions. You have to expose the redefiners.  That’s what Jesus did.  But they won’t go quietly.  And they know they’re the ones with the media access because they’re the ones the media wants speaking for us and for God.  None of this is accidental.  It’s all part of a brilliant master plan.

The author is a Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought

Obama lawsuit against Arizona not based on law

Obama’s lawsuit against AZ is not based on law

Don Hank

As a legal/technical translator, I have read and translated my share of legal briefs.

The lawsuit brought by the Obama administration against AZ is by far the lamest, most juvenile brief I have read in my nearly 40 years of exposure to such texts. The main reason for this is that, in all of the lawsuits I have read heretofore, there is a citation of law. Here there are no laws cited at all and also no case law. It fails in fact to rise to the level of a legal brief. The fact that it was even accepted by the Supreme Court is an ominous sign for our country.

Text sample [my comments in brackets]:

“It [the AZ law] will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens [How will it conflict with federal law if it agrees with it? No legal precepts or laws specified]. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution [First, what protections are legally available for “an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution”? Would an alien have a well founded fear of persecution if he was acting within the law? Further, since the AZ law is based on federal law, then it would have to be the federal law that is ignoring humanitarian concerns. No laws specified] or who has been the victim of a natural disaster [If it is legal to enter the US without papers on the grounds of a natural disaster, then AZ law does not apply because it is based on US law. If it is illegal to enter the US without papers in case of a natural disaster, then the courts must base their decision on the law as written, not on controversial opinion as to what constitutes a hardship case and whether humanitarian concerns override the law in such a case. Besides, again, the federal law is the basis for this AZ law, so it is not fair to single out AZ as one of many states that expect federal immigration law to be obeyed within its boundaries or to punish the state for having such reasonable expectations]. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries [Is this diplomatic relationship not based on law? If not, on what is it based? If something other than law, then this is not a matter for the courts to decide, because they are charged only with evaluating the legal aspects of any case or law, not the diplomatic aspects].”

 If the Supreme Court sides with Obama in this case, then we can no longer in any way expect our legal system to base any decision on the law as written. Legal decisions then become a matter of personal philosophy of the judges. For example, the president could demand in a lawsuit that all auto makers and sellers cease and desist from their activity on the grounds that some cars have fatal accidents.

The courts have always sided with the States in matters of immigration of this kind, so a departure from case law would also open up a new era of total randomness in court decisions. No legal system can stand for long under such circumstances.

Further reading: 

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/feds-sue-arizona-over-1070it

Obama headed for Constitutional crisis?

The Obama administration has slapped a new moratorium on offshore drilling.

What part of the Supreme Court decision deferring such a ban doesn’t the Obama administration understand?

Wait, the lawsuit against Arizona proves Obama doesn’t like the way the founders set up our government, with states having rights not assigned to the feds. So apparently he doesn’t acknowledge the Supreme Court when it opposes His Majesty either.

Here’s the thing about offshore drilling we often ignore:

Like any enterprise that affects the environment, it can be dangerous in the hands of a madman. For example, suppose we had a president who refused the assistance of a foreign government that wanted to help clean up an oil spill.

Wow! That would be crazy, wouldn’t it? What with all those birds and fish out there turning black.

Oh, wait, that would be the Obama administration, which waited 1.5 months to accept a

Dutch offer for skimmers that could have removed all of the oil from the surface of the Gulf by now instead of criminally dispersing toxic oil in the water as was done by BP with Washington’s nod.

Now what happens if another government, as gutsy as the Dutch, decides to sue us for endangering the world’s oceans?

We could see that happen if they decide to stop worshipping the Messiah and doing what’s right?

Far-fetched?

Remember, Obama is odd man out in the world today. He was the only member of the G8 and G20 summits who refused to renounce the proposition of further bailouts for rich bankers.

Anything is possible, folks. Don’t be surprised.

The Dutch drew the world’s attention to the insanity in the Gulf. Who will be next to blow Obama’s whistle? Or maybe crank the heat up a notch.