The Objectives of Tsar Vladimir I

Objectives Of Tsar Vladimir I   <– PDF version

President Barack “I lied, period” Obama seems to be completely mystified by the foreign policy of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  That Mr. Obama should be confused by one of the simplest foreign policies imaginable is a wonder to behold.  Let us review recent events.

1.  In Feb 2014, Mr. Putin ordered Russian Special Forces units to infiltrate eastern Ukraine, occupying several key towns, posing as (what else) “freedom fighters”, ostensibly to protect people of Russian heritage in Ukraine from discrimination by the Ukrainian government.  Only later did Mr. Putin admit that the entire episode was in fact a covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.  The US and many other nations reacted by imposing economic sanctions on Russia, a fact which has thus far not fazed Mr. Putin or his administration.  At this writing, the battle for eastern Ukraine continues, with Ukrainians doing their best to defeat a combination force of Russian military and domestic Russian separatists.

2.  In Mar 2014 Mr. Putin ordered subversive elements of the Russian military to simply show up and occupy the Supreme Council of Crimea, install a new government led by a Russian puppet (Aksyonov), order a declaration of independence followed by a fraudulent election, with the forgone result that Crimea would re-join Russia.  Crimea is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Moscow, divided into the “Republic of Crimea” and the “Free City of Sevastopol”.  Crimea had formerly been part of Ukraine since 1954, when the Soviet Union granted it to Ukraine (also then a slave state under the USSR).

3. Mr. Putin has been unwavering in his support forIran’s nuclear program.  His policy is partly due, I think, to animosity towards Israel and a desire to obtain indirect power over Iran in order to gain access to warm-water ports. Iran should be careful not to get too cozy with Russia: it was not that long ago (1880 – 1915) when Russia controlled all of northern Iran, until Russia was distracted by the Revolution of 1917, and had to retreat.  But Russia occupied Iran again just after World War II, after which it was forced out only by U. S.pressure in 1948.

Mr. Putin certainly knows his Russian history, and appears to renewing the ancient Tsarist and Communist policy after a 20-year hiatus following the fall of the U. S. S. R.  It is based on territorial opportunism, exploiting every weakness as it comes along.  As Senator Robert Taft [1] observed in 1951:

For two hundred years Russia has been moving forward by going into soft spots.  That has been its policy.  Wherever it thought it could grab something and get away with it, it has done so.  Here was a place [S. Korea] which the Secretary of State [Dean Acheson] and the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee [Senator Tom Connolly, D-TX] gave the Russians every reason to consider a soft spot.

So what is next for Tsar Vladimir?  That depends on where the next soft spot is.  Now that he has divided the Ukraine, possibly it is time to look westward, especially to Poland.  If there was ever a time for the people of that nation to arm and train it is now, before the Russians walk in and occupy it as they did in east Ukraine and Crimea.  No one doubts the patriotism and bravery of the Polish people, but one must question their government’s sanity by not preparing immediately.  If that day comes, the Polish people will be left to their own devices.  America (under Obama) will file a complaint with the United Nations, Germany and France will call a press conference, and the ever-admirable British will do all they can, but it won’t be enough.

[1] Robert A. Taft, A Foreign Policy for Americans, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1951, p. 106


Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

On the President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws

PresidentsDutyToFaithfullyExecuteLaws  <– PDF version

President Barack “I lied, period” Obama recently issued an Executive Order that exempted many illegal aliens from deportation if they met certain nebulous requirements.  It is alleged by His Most High Incompetence that this order would affect only about 5 million people, but there is no reason to believe that figure in favor of any higher number.  Many have claimed that Obama’s particular Executive Order is illegal, since, by waiving a part of immigration law, he is failing to faithfully execute the laws per his oath of office as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  So far, 25 states have joined in a lawsuit seeking to have the order overruled, and the next Congress has claimed it will do the same (probably by endorsing and expanding it).

But the real question is: where does a President and his Justice Department toadies get the arrogance to ignore their oaths of office?  That has already been answered by St. George Tucker, an early expositor of the Constitution [1] in a series of essays published in 1803:

Lastly; it is the duty of the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and, in the words of his oath, “to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.”

The obligation of oaths upon the consciences of ambitious men has always been very slight, as the general history of mankind but too clearly evinces.  Among the Romans, indeed, they were held in great sanctity during the purer ages of the republic, but began to be disregarded as the nation approached to a state of debasement, that fitted them for slavery.  Among Christian princes, they seem only to have been calculated for the worst, instead of the best purposes: monarchs having long exercised, and seeming to claim, not less than the successors of St. Peter, a kind of dispensing power on this subject, in all cases affecting themselves.  A due sense of religion must not only be wanting in such cases, but the moral character of the man must be wholly debased, and corrupted.  Whilst these remain unsullied, in the United States, oaths may operate in support of the constitution they have adopted, but no longer.  After that period an oath of office will serve merely to designate its duties, and not to secure the faithful performance of them; or, to restrain those who are disposed to violate them.

Why does this kind of arrogance prevail?  Because the officers of the government have adopted corruption and immorality as their mode of operation: what matters to them is the political expediency of the moment without regard for what is right, wrong, or important in the long term.  It is not actually a legal matter: no court ruling will affect the basic corruption.  Left unchecked, this level of corruption will eventually cause the republic to degenerate into tyranny.  Montesquieu [2] notes:

When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

We can only hope that the American people will be more discerning at the next presidential election.

[1] St. George Tucker, A View of the Constitution of the United States, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, p. 282, (1999).  The original was published in 1803.

[2] Charles de Secondat, (Baron de Montesquieu), The Spirit of Laws, Book VIII, chapter 12.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Congress, government powers, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

Regarding Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

Regarding Obamas Immigration Executive Action   <– PDF version

The President issued an Executive Action on 21 Nov 2014 regarding the enforcement of the immigration laws.  It amounts to deferring deportation for about five million illegal aliens if they meet two criteria: a) must have been in the U. S. for five years; and b) must have children who are citizens by birth or naturalization. The alleged rationale for this action deferring deportation is that Congress has refused to act in the interest of keeping families (some members of which are here illegally) together.  His other claims about the action are that eligible illegal aliens: a) must register with the federal government; b) must be fingerprinted and undergo a criminal background check at their own expense; c) are not eligible for any public benefits; and d) must pay income taxes upon successfully completing the background check and receiving a work permit.  Also, he claimed that more resources will be devoted to securing the border and deporting felons.  This being an executive action, it expires when the President leaves office.  (I am being charitable by assuming this delusional narcissist will leave office voluntarily on 20 Jan 2017; don’t be surprised if he claims a third term because it would have been the will of the people who don’t vote in 2016.)

Every candid observer must agree, given his conduct over the past six years, that Barack Obama is a pathological liar.  Aside from that, consider this action from the standpoint of the illegal alien.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to register with the government so that the government will know who they are and where they are when the executive action expires.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to pay for a background check and processing fees that he has never had to pay before.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to volunteer to now pay taxes he has not been liable for all these years.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that the illegal aliens receiving public welfare benefits will give them up.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron who thinks that border or visa enforcement will actually occur under this administration.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that the federal government will deport felons.  All of Obama’s claims are false as usual: there will be no fees, no registration, no background checks, no payment of taxes, no reduction of welfare rolls, no border enforcement, and no deportation of anyone, felon or not.

It is worse than that.  The Republicans do not have many options for stopping the implementation of this action, since it is difficult legislatively to force a President to actually do his job.  They will whimper a lot, but won’t do much about it.  Secondly, a sizeable fraction of Republicans (led by Senator John McCain) want all the illegal aliens made citizens on the grounds that it is the path of lesser resistance compared to actually securing the border and enforcing the visa limitations.  It will also show that the Republicans are just as willing as Democrats to hand our national sovereignty over to foreign-national trespassers, which (they hope) will cause many Hispanic people to vote for Republicans.

It is likely that the President will get away with deferring deportation for these five million, so what is to stop Barack “I lied, period” Obama from granting all illegal aliens permanent residency six months from now?  What will stop him from granting all 30 million illegal aliens automatic citizenship a year from now?  We should expect that this is only the beginning.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Regarding the Michael Brown case

RegardingTheMichaelBrownCase   <– PDF version

Mr. Michael Brown was shot to death by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson on the afternoon of Saturday, 9 Aug 2014.  Some of the details that have become public knowledge include:

a. Wilson first “contacted” Mr. Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson while they were walking in the street.

b. There was some sort of confrontation between Brown and Wilson, part of which occurred inside Wilson’s patrol car.

c. At least one shot was fired inside the car.

d. Brown was shot at least six times and died at the scene.

e. Johnson was never shot at, nor injured in the incident, nor was he subsequently arrested.

There are two conflicting narratives as to the sequence of events.  Both versions agree that there was a confrontation inside the patrol car, but differ as to the cause.  Some claim Wilson pulled Brown in, or slammed a door on Brown provoking an attack by Brown. Wilson’s version is that Brown simply attacked him while Wilson was still in the car and the shot was fired while Brown was trying to take Wilson’s gun.  The second area of dispute is whether Mr. Brown was shot in the back as he tried to run away, or was shot from the front as he tried to surrender to Wilson with his hands up; or had initially tried to run, but then turned and charged Wilson.  Mr. Johnson has claimed Brown was trying to surrender and Wilson has claimed Brown was charging him.  There were several eyewitnesses to the incident besides Wilson and Johnson; some corroborate Wilson’s version and other’s defending Johnson’s version.  There have been three autopsies on Brown’s body, but none of them (as far as we know) are conclusive as to whether Brown was shot from the front or back.

Because Brown is black and Wilson is white, naturally the shooting attracted the attention of outside race-baiters and agitators, resulting in a prolonged period of nightly looting and rioting near the scene.  Federal race-baiters including Attorney General Eric “Justice is political” Holder and President Barack “I lied, period” Obama also commented on the case, as usual without any knowledge thereof.  The Ferguson police department handed control of security to the St. Louis County police department, but failing in their efforts, the National Guard was called in by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.  The rioting and demonstrations finally ended when a grand jury was convened on 20 Aug to investigate the incident and make a determination as to whether Wilson should be charged with a crime.  At this writing, the grand jury has not issued its findings, although it is expected shortly.

There are some other peculiarities in this case.  First, Mr. Johnson admitted in the week after the shooting that he and Mr. Brown were in fact involved in a robbery (caught on videotape) of a local convenience store minutes before the confrontation with Wilson.  It is not clear (as there is conflicting evidence) if Officer Wilson was aware of the robbery or the description of the men.  So, we do not know yet whether the contact between Wilson and Brown/Johnson was precipitated because they were suspects in the robbery, or if it was because they were walking in the street.  Secondly, Officer Wilson’s identity was not released until 11 Aug, ostensibly in the interest of his and the public’s safety.

One of the disturbing things about this case is that Wilson was treated differently than any other person.  If Wilson had been a regular citizen, even with the chain of events as he described them, he would have been immediately arrested and charged with capital murder and his identity released.  But because Wilson is a government employee, his identity was kept secret until practically forced from the Department, and he was merely placed on paid administrative leave pending a grand jury investigation.  This is probably the greatest long-term facet of this case: the extent to which government employees are given preferential treatment compared to non-government employees involved in similar incidents.  If we are to preserve liberty, it is essential that all come under the same law, government and non-government alike.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »