Turn the Faucet Off – Turn Them All Off

 

By Robert "Bobby" Charles - July 25, 2014 (TownHall.com)

Robert B. Charles is former assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement in the George W. Bush administration.

Turn off the faucet – turn them all off.

Please tell me we are not about to confront another Obama White House scandal.

Please tell me it is not another one connected to mismanagement of our national borders, deceptions and politicization of our criminal justice system.

Please tell me we are not experiencing another betrayal of the public trust.

The place is already flooded. What is it now?

Many Border Patrol agents are disquieted by White House decisions relating to the US border, and they are beginning to talk.

Who would not be?

By credible accounts, the Southwest border is being systematically overrun by illegal aliens, none following the time-honored process of legally acquiring citizenship.

From somewhere on high, there is a directive to let the flow go.

A Democrat-controlled Senate is four-square behind the policy.

So, with what seems indifference to our Nation’s law, Border Patrol agents are being forced to choose between a radical policy shift and their constitutional oath to protect and defend America’s borders.

The background is also clear.

A Nation without borders is not a Nation.

Citizenship has no meaning if “all who enter here” are entitled to what the citizen works and pays taxes for.

Without understanding our Nation’s language and history, grasping that civil rights come with civic duties, or seeing that allegiance, assimilation and appreciation are part of living in America, a grant of unanchored residency diminishes us all.

Nor is it much of a trade.

The new resident gets free things.

The Nation gets disinterested, uneducated, unprepared, sometimes sick, often criminal additions to our communities.

The new arrivals are not only illegal, they stay illegal – they do not pay taxes and they avoid accountability until caught.

Citizenship has historically involved tests, of health, education, language, history and morality.

The new policy cheapens what so many Americans – naturalized and born – have given unconditionally to preserve.

And that is not a sound bite; that is a tragedy.

Today, new reports are trickling out of the Border Patrol.

They suggest that, even against this backdrop, the story is worse than we are told.

Border Patrol agents are literally “baby sitting” hundreds of thousands of foreigners under age of 18, many of whom are known to he be gang members, teen parents themselves, or have criminal records in countries from which they come.

Rather than wait – with those who have legally strived for years to become proud, naturalized citizens – this wave of young, non-English-speaking, benefit-hunting non-citizens is just being admitted. Why?

Take your guess, but it is no accident.

Politics are wrapped into that White House decision; there is no other explanation.

Reports are also now emerging that churches are being pressured by the federal government to house these illegal aliens – around the country. Why?

To change the optics of a crisis generated by this White House and Democrat controlled Senate?

In waves, they are reportedly being bused all over the country.

Whether the churches are forced to pay the freight or reimbursed by the federal government is secondary, although it does seem an odd mix of church and state.

Think about it: Does it not seem singularly odd that a White House with the self-asserted power to strip churches of constitutional “free exercise” rights by executive order is now “encouraging” the same churches to become complicit in a violation of federal law, or at least accommodation of deportees never likely to leave?

Take your guess why, but it is another non-accident.

Politics are wrapped into that policy decision, too.

I mean, can you imagine Obama containment camps on the border with hungry children through the mid-term elections?

Even with these overflowing encampments and federal buildings, illegals are not being processed OUT of the country, but INTO it.

Experts in immigration note that few processed in will ever show up at their deportation hearings, and this gets less likely as they are bused to the four winds.

Why should they?

They have been admitted.

They can now claim due process rights and assert them interminably.

Since 2001, the US Supreme Court has allowed (Calcano-Martinez v. INS and INS v. St. Cyr) illegal aliens to use “due process” and “equal protection” claims to get federal court review of deportations, even for criminal offenses.

So, generally once here, they are here to stay.

So what is the new policy?

In effect, to ignore the border.

By all appearances, the White House has decided not to enforce the law, since doing so is expensive and time-consuming.

Put differently, just as they have suspended prosecution of dangerous and illegal drugs (making them legal by default), the White House is often waiving deportation for dangerous and illegal aliens (making them legal by default).

But why?

Does this policy enrich our country culturally, socially, economically, morally or legally?

Does it honor and reaffirm the value of citizenship?

Certainly not – or not to most naturalized Americans (read: assimilating, thoughtful, patient, patriotic and English-speaking), nor to most native-born Americans (read: all others).

In short, giving away our country’s citizenship rights is a scandal.

But, alas, also old news.

This is the new scandal.

The Border Patrol publishes the number of “deportations” conducted annually.

The Obama White House – despite all the above bad news – suddenly claims to have made “record deportations” last year. Really?

This seemed incongruous.

Inquiries followed.

Turns out, the Obama Administration has fudged the numbers – another set of numbers.

Do they never learn?

Do they think we will miss what they are doing, pay no attention?

Just like at the Veteran’s Administration, which maintained a secret waiting list to make it seem that veterans were being properly served, the White House has been playing fast and loose with “deportation” numbers to make the White House seem serious about illegal immigration.

The facts: Historically, three categories of attempted entrance into the US have not been counted as producing a deportation.

These were potential residents who reversed course and went home voluntarily, to preserve an opportunity to re-enter legally.

The three were “voluntary removal,” where someone seeking entry illegally was caught and then given the opportunity to “voluntarily” return to his home country; “expedited removal,” in which someone was administratively removed from the US, again permitting legal return; and “deterred turn backs,” which involved those summarily turned around at the border – and pointed south.

These have never been counted as legal “deportations.”

Now, all of a sudden, the Obama White House has secretly changed the meaning of the word “deportation.”

The secret definitional change gave them a false brag sheet.

As of last year, they quietly count all of three non-deportation categories as legal “deportations,” a term formerly reserved for those removed after apprehension as criminals or illegal aliens in the interior.

The Obama team seems to think they have us focused on class warfare, only we caught them.

We have noticed.

The claim of “record deportations” is thus a fiction.

They have actually posted a reverse record – the largest drop in internal deportations since 1973, masked by the definitional change.

At the same time, the number apprehended and deported by ICE has dropped, according to some reliable sources, by 20 percent.

So, let’s get this right: As our borders swell with illegal aliens that are being bused to the interior by the federal government, and received by coerced churches, we are hiding the most precipitous drop in deportations in forty years?

And we are adding insult to injury by claiming a record drop in deportations?

Gone again is truth.

What is being done is promulgation of another bold misstatement of fact: We are being told that “deportations” are rising, when they are in free fall.

When is enough finally enough?

Will no one parse the numbers, stop the word games, and tell the American people how big the sanctioned invasion really is?

After all, beyond the law, we would seem to have a moral right to know the real numbers – we are paying for the invasion with our tax dollars.

The White House mantra seems to be that half-truths and non-truths restated enough times become truth.

They do not.

They simply deepen the resentment that honest people have for what they are being told.

So, it seems we have another White House scandal, not huge, but big enough.

Is this being done to change the existing order, seek vengeance on the past, erase what America has been, remake it in another image, or serve some greater political endgame?

Who can say?

The main point is that we have a moral obligation – as well as a legal one – to stop this redefinition of America?

Like Obama’s stimulus plan, that saved millions of mythical jobs that “would have been lost,” this White House now has mythical deportations to match – or mask – the not-at-all-mythical insertion of hundreds of thousands of new illegal aliens into our communities.

When does it stop?

When will truth again matter?

When will we wake up to find that accountability has been re-established, that another scandal is not upon us?

Turn the faucet off – turn them all off.

The place is flooded.

Ronald Reagan put us on the right path, and we need to get back to it.

“While a Constitution may set forth rights and liberties, only citizens can maintain and guarantee those freedoms.

Active and informed citizenship is not just a right; it is a duty.”

So let’s stay vigilant.

Let’s protect the citizenship that protects those rights.

THE LONELY LOT OF THE ANTI-POT CRUSADER

The Washington Post - By Richard Leiby - July 22, 2014

  Richard Leiby is a senior writer in Post’s Style section. His previous assignments have included Pakistan Bureau Chief, and reporter, columnist and editor in Washington. He joined The Post in 1991.

As pro-marijuana forces deployed their sidewalk soldiers to gather signatures to put pot legalization on the District’s November ballot, Aaron McCormick, a 47-year-old city native and father of three, watched with growing alarm.

Somebody must stop this scourge, he decided. But how?

McCormick says he knew of no group fighting the initiative, heard no opposition to it in his church and got no traction for his anti-weed views on his vibrant Twitter account, @blackmanhelping, where he opines on local affairs.

McCormick, a construction project manager, considered challenging the ballot initiative himself, but he ultimately realized the futility of fighting an army of marijuana advocates.

Such is the lonely lot of today’s pot opponent. Parents like McCormick, once heroes of the just-say-no 1980s, find themselves outgunned: The anti-marijuana movement has little funding or staff, little momentum and, it appears, little audience.

Decriminalization went into effect last week in the District, setting a $25 penalty for possession of up to an ounce of weed.

Earlier in July, pro-marijuana activists scored another victory, submitting 57,000 voter signatures, more than double the number required, to bring the ballot measure, which could add the District to the vanguard of legalization along with Colorado and Washington state.

“I hope and pray that Congress will step in and shut it all down,” McCormick said, noting federal lawmakers’ penchant for trying to block marijuana initiatives in the District.

“To me, we just came out of the crack epidemic and are still seeing its effects. Now we want to allow people to smoke marijuana 24-7?”

It would seem so.

More than half of Americans support legalization, various polls show.

The Pew Research Center has found that 48 percent have tried pot.

Seventeen states plus the District have eliminated jail time for possession, and medical marijuana is now okay in nearly half of the United States (23 states plus the District).

“Interestingly, whenever we have a debate on TV, we hear the producer asking, ‘Who can we get to debate against marijuana?’ ” says Tony Newman, spokesman for the reformist Drug Policy Alliance.

The cable-show bookers’ “con” choices are indeed scant.

“It’s unbelievable what’s happened,” says Robert DuPont, a psychiatrist who was the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the 1970s.

“You can’t find anybody to speak on the other side. . . . The leaders in both parties have completely abandoned the issue.”

DuPont, an addiction specialist, could hold his own in any debate about drugs.

He and other experts point to research showing that 9 percent of marijuana users become addicted, a
figure that rises to 16 percent when use begins in teen years.

In various studies, weed also is linked to lower academic performance and mental illness and other health problems.

The marijuana normalization movement bats back such findings by citing the devastating results of alcohol and tobacco dependency and abuse, for example, and the palliative effects of marijuana as medicine.

And they say the disproportionately higher rate of minorities’ arrests and incarceration for pot-related offenses have caused greater social harm — which became a major selling point for decriminalization in the District.

Backed by deep-pocketed funders, the legalizers deploy lobbyists, spokesmen and researchers from well-staffed organizations like the Marijuana Policy Project, the Drug Policy Alliance, Americans for Safe Access and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

They even have their own business alliance: the National Cannabis Industry Association.

“These guys are in a full-court press coming at you from every angle,” says DuPont, 78, who runs the small, Rockville-based Institute for Behavior and Health.

He sounds exasperated.

“They have a bench 1,000 people deep. . . . We’ve got Kevin Sabet.”

Sabet, 35, first testified before the Senate against drug legalization when he was 17 and now runs an anti-pot-legalization group called Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM).

Last year he made No. 1 on Rolling Stone’s “Legalization’s Biggest Enemies” list.

“Do we want a stoned America?” asks Sabet, who has served drug czars in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

“Is that where we want to go at a time when America’s place in the world, in terms of academic and economic competitiveness, is greatly threatened? Good luck.”

Based in Cambridge, Mass., Sabet says he commits “100-plus hours a week” to raising the alarm and has help from SAM affiliates in 27 states.

People who still see grass as “a harmless giggle in our basement” are ignoring the “Wall Street sharks” hoping to profit from a nationwide cannabis industry as large and powerful as the booze or tobacco businesses, he says.

Sabet predicts increases in buzzed driving and health problems.

But such arguments clearly have not stopped the other side’s momentum.

“Woeful Kevin” is what Allen St. Pierre, NORML’s executive director, calls Sabet.

“I feel blessed by someone like Kevin,” St. Pierre says.

“Since he has come on the scene we have prevailed, prevailed, prevailed. We could use 500 Kevins.”

The reversal of fortunes in the reefer battle is rooted in politics as much as anything.

NORML was founded in 1970, when the counterculture ethos was in full flower, so to speak; millions of baby boomers experimented with drugs.

The Nixon administration was decidedly anti-hippie, but by the time Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency, “decriminalization looked inevitable,” DuPont recalls.

In 1977, Carter said the punishment for marijuana possession “should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself” — a message still reinforced by legalization advocates today.

But in the mid-1970s, a potent counter-movement was already stirring across the land, a phenomenon tracked by Emily Dufton, who wrote her recent doctoral thesis at George Washington University on the remarkable shifts in American attitudes on marijuana in recent decades.

In the mid-1970s, middle-class parents, alarmed at finding stashes in fake Coke cans and hash pipes under mattresses, started banding together to talk about behavioral changes they saw in their weed-toking kids.

In 1977, one Atlanta woman wrote to DuPont, then at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and invited him to meet with her group.

At the time, he supported decriminalization, but he came away a staunch prohibitionist, convinced that heroin was not at the center of America’s drug woes — it affected relatively few users — but marijuana, which affected vastly more families.

The parent movement, embraced by the Reagan White House, eventually garnered enough strength to entirely change the debate.

In just a few years, they transformed marijuana “from a seemingly benign middle-class drug into the most dangerous drug in the United States,” as Dufton put it.

But in the 1980s came a new scourge, crack cocaine, and marijuana became significantly less frightening to people than crack, she says.

The parents’ campaign did result in a major drop in teenage marijuana use from the 1980s to the dawn of the ’90s, research shows, but the campaign was ultimately doomed.

Professional organizations like the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and D.A.R.E. siphoned funds away from the amateurs.

The public grew weary of nonstop, sometimes hyperbolic anti-drug messages. (See: “This is your brain on drugs.”)

Promoting a message of compassion for the sick, medical marijuana advocates led the way in the 1990s to a more accepting public view toward recreational pot.

The number of pro-pot groups began to surge.

“It’s our fault,” Sabet admits, but he cites one mitigating factor.

“They have money and we don’t.”

Still, other forces explain why reform has caught on now, including supportive baby boomer voters; a lingering recession that dampened government revenue, making the taxation of marijuana tempting; and an overwhelming public view that alcohol prohibition was a “great failed experiment,” St. Pierre says.

In addition, the Obama administration decided not to challenge legalization in Washington and Colorado and to allow banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers.

“This is like gay marriage,” St. Pierre argues.

“Twenty years ago if you voted for it you were a loser; now 20 years later, if you vote against it you’re a loser.”

In the District, the legalizers are predicting success.

Sabet’s group decided against challenging the signatures gathered for the ballot initiative: “We are picking our battles,” he says.

So where does that leave concerned residents like Aaron McCormick, who has 6- and 7-year old daughters and a 14-year-old son?

Even if pot is legal, he has told his teenager, think of career consequences: If you want a good job, you’re still going to have to pass a drug test.

In the Navy, where McCormick served six years, regular drug testing was part of the drill.

“I have never smoked it,” he says.

“My kids know that Daddy is definitely a hard-nosed person.

I don’t give any slack on this marijuana issue. None. Zero.”

So, kids, some advice: You’d better just say no.

World Conflict: Russia, Ukraine/Crimea, and Turkey

Dear All,

 

The article below is regarding the Countries of Russia and Turkey and was published on March 04, 2014.  It is a warning to readers from across the world providing some insight into the perils of a likely regional war caused by the dangerous and reckless President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. 

 

US Senator Dianne Feinstein

The readers should also be aware that yesterday [July 20, 2014] on the Sunday News Shows, US Senator Dianne Feinstein stated, “Feinstein: US Now in a Cold War With Russia”. 

 

The senators comment comes after Russia has already forcefully and militarily annexed Turkey’s neighbor just across the Black Sea, the “Crimea”, and then after a Russian missile shot down a plane carrying innocent civilians [Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17] killing all 298 passengers [men, women, young children, and babies] and crew, as Russia stubbornly continues to pursue its conflict with the Country of the Ukraine in their desire to annex the area called the “Eastern Ukraine”.

The Russian missile was fired from just inside Ukraine, adjacent to their border with Russia and in territory occupied and controlled by the Russians and their surrogates.

 

The Nation of Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and also a neighbor in the Geopolitical region of the Ukraine and Russia (which also includes the Country of Georgia that Putin militarily invaded in 2008 during the George W. Bush presidency).  

 

As such, Turkey is keenly aware and extremely concerned about Russia’s military  adventurism in the region; as you will read in the article below. 

 

Also, Turkey and Russia have historically been ardent enemies meaning that Russia can probably count on Turkey to aid and abet disaffected Crimean’s and Ukrainians [read article below]; supplying arms and training them in the art of Guerilla Warfare Tactics for the purpose of terrorizing the Russians into leaving the Crimea and returning it back to it's rightful place in the Ukraine (in the same manner Russia’s military was humiliated and defeated during the Afghanistan gorilla conflict).

 

Should political and military events in this region continue to deteriorate and escalate out of control, Turkey could very well become a unwitting participant, which makes it worrisome for Europe, the United States, and Members of the NATO Alliance; as this “will” then drag NATO into the fiasco, resulting in a much wider and dangerous world conflict.  Also, people should be aware that the United States has a huge military presence in Turkey; the Incirlik US Air Base.

 

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is seriously flirting with disaster (just like this tragic airplane disaster) in the Ukraine and is continuing to destabilize many other nations in the region which in the short and long run will most likely have a very negative effect on Russia and her countrymen......(the Citizens of Russia should think long and hard about the path Putin is taking them down............it would be well for them to remember their past history and the unspeakable carnage that war reeked on their homeland).

 

It is time for the Citizens of Russia to bring pressure on their “Dictator” and demand that Putin immediately stop what he is doing, and instead join the rest of the worlds civilized nations; they still have time to choose peace, prosperity, milk, and honey for their country instead of misery, death, and destruction.

 

Unfortunately, US Senator Dianne Feinstein is correct, the US (and civilized world) are once again in a “Cold War” with Russia – Gratis of the reckless and feckless leadership of Russian President ( and Dictator) Vladimir Putin.

 

Regards,  Ron Kirkish 

 

Russian warships pass through Istanbul’s Bosphorus sea, Turkey intercepts Russian jets

 

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Russian_warships_pass_through_Istanbul%E2%80%99s_Bosphorus_sea,_Turkey_intercepts_Russian_jets/33378/0/38/38/Y/M.html

 

 

Related links: UPDATED: Russian Warship Movements Through Turkish Straits

 

Two Russian warships on their way to the Black Sea have passed through Istanbul’s Bosphorus staits.

 

Russia’s ‘Saratov’ and ‘Yamal’ ships sailed unaccompanied through the Marmara Sea before entering the Bosphorus straits at 07:30 local time (05:30 GMT).

 

The two ships, which were usually based in the eastern Mediterranean to monitor developments in Syria, are now on their way to Crimea due to the latest situation there.

 

At the same time a Ukrainian ship called ‘Hetman Sahaidachny’ entered the straits at Canakkale (Gallipoli) on its way to the Marmara Sea.

 

Thousands of Russian troops have been deployed to the Crimea, an autonomous region of Ukraine, after Russia’s Parliament passed a motion on Saturday.

 

Due to prior agreements, the Bosphorus straits are recognized as international waters despite cutting through the middle of Turkey’s most populated city, Istanbul.

 

The Bosphorus is a key strategic passage between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

 

Turkish F-16s intercept Russian jet

 

Eight Turkish F-16 fighter jets intercepted a Russian reconnaissance plane that had flown parallel to Turkish coast in international airspace on Tuesday.

Turkey’s General Staff said on its website that an IL-20-type reconnaissance jet had flown parallel to Turkey’s Black Sea coast in international airspace.

The Turkish Air Force responded by sending eight F-16 fighter jets to intercept it, the statement said.

Turkish FM: We will always stand by Crimean Tatars

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Monday that Turkey will always stand by the Crimean Tatars, as he met with nearly 50 representatives of Crimean Associations.

Turkey supports and encourages the return of Tatars in their homeland Davutogllu said, adding that the current Turkish President and Prime Minister are saying that do not even think that we can stay indifferent to any matter related to our compatriots in Crimea or anywhere in the world.

“Wherever our brothers and sisters are suffering we will be the first to help them,” Davutoglu said.

The Crimean Tatars fear exile again if the Crimea region of Ukraine is going to stay occupied by Russia.

The 280,000 Crimean Tatars living in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea constitute close to 13 percent of the total population, according to Turkey’s Foreign Ministry.

Muslim minority Tatars are manning the streets and mosques as they fear a repeat of the exile they faced in 1944 under Stalin, which saw them scattered in labor camps across the barren steppes of Central Asia.

Turkish Deputy PM: Stability in Ukraine important for Turkey

Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Emrullah Isler said on Monday that Turkey respects Ukraine’s territorial integreity and stability.

Isler spoke at a visit to the Ankara Organized Industrial Region for local election campaigns.

“Ukraine’s territorial integrity, stability and prosperity are crucial for Turkey’s foreign policy,’’ Isler said.

”Ukraine’s political stability is very important for the other eastern European countries because they face the risk of separation due to ongoing political turmoil.”

He also emphasized that Crimea is part of Ukraine’s territory and said consensus could help solve the problems.

Of Horses, Politicians, and Fences

 

  

 By Robert Charles - The American Thinker - July 18, 2014

Robert Charles worked in the Reagan and GHW Bush White Houses, served as Counsel to Speaker Hastert and as Assistant Secretary of State for Colin Powell. He taught Oversight at the Harvard University Extension School, clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals and runs a consulting firm in Washington.

Unbridled horses tend to think they are wild. For that reason, fences were made. Politicians unbounded by law -- or who think themselves unbounded by law -- tend toward running wild, toward the commission of deeper and wider intrusions on personal liberty. As Americans, we are now living thorough a consequential moment. Like it or not, we are witness to accelerating executive abuse.  

Lack of legal fencing, or an unwillingness to use legal fencing that exists, leads inexorably to runaway behavior. Uncorrected and deterred, small breaches of accountability accelerate. We all know this. We know this of our everyday lives, even as we know this of political leadership. Lord Acton noted that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The corollary is this: Incremental and tolerated abuse of public trust produces larger and more frequent abuses of power.

Do you doubt the basic principle? Just go to a bookshelf – or google – any of the thousands of pages written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, our fourth and third presidents respectively, Father of the Bill of Rights and writer of the Declaration of Independence. Or flip open Plato's Republic, in which Socrates describes a "democracy" which cannot unify and hold leaders accountable as destined for "tyranny." Not my words, nothing Democratic or Republican, just Plato's candid assessment, written over a millennium ago.

If you prefer, look to history. Take King George III, whose abuses built on each other, small oppressions, larger regulations, unjust taxes, until they triggered a movement -- the American Democracy.  Once unified, democratic disposition and love of individual freedom is hard to suppress. Out of George III's abuses, we got the world's most successful, open, pluralistic, limited and stable republican government.

Take any oppressor of the last hundred and fifty years, for that matter, the last hundred and fifty decades! You will find corroboration for the principle that abuses accelerate over time. Even over the past sixty years, history is littered with examples. Consider Panama’s former self-appointed strong man Noriega, Syria's two Assads, Cuba's Castro, Venezuela’s Chavez, and the Soviet Union's suite of uniquely oppressive, reflexively deceitful, and unaccountable dark figures, Lenin through Andropov. 

Leaders who fashion themselves above law "just a little" and only in their own minds, soon assert rights far above the law, and boldly move to remake the world to conform to their delusions. Even if you can tolerate a dictator, abhor his means. Such leaders never evolve back into democrats. They are never humble servants of a Sovereign People. In their minds, they are smarter. While they hold power, they are objectively powerful. They seek to control the marketplace of ideas. 

First with caution, then with arrogance, they swallow individual, local and provincial prerogatives, slowly and then in gulps. Counterintuitively, the more they can consume, the hungrier they become.  Having subverted little liberties, their ambition grows. Having shaded the truth, they learn to ignore it. Eventually, all is justified. New assertions of authority feed the delusion, and reinforce the appetite for control. The process accelerates – until checked. Like wild horses, they roam until fenced.

That is why, in this country, we have always said no man is above the law, not even a president. We have reminded each other for 300 years that we are a land of laws, not of men. There is no legal toleration for cult of personality or utopian ideologies. There is no policy that can justify suppression of God-given liberties – not yours, mine or our neighbors'. That, after all, is what makes us so unique, we Americans. We live the idea. This has always been true, even if our neighbors made more money, drove bigger cars, and drank bigger sodas than we do. Nothing trumps the average American's commitment to individual freedom.  Our identities -- individually and collectively -- form through this commitment. 

Of course, some political leaders do not get this. But you know it and I know it. Why does this disposition to permitting our neighbors to have freedom, so we can keep our own, run so deep? The answer is in the question. We do not need John Locke to know that we tolerate each other's oddities and preferences, so we can enjoy toleration ourselves. Left to our own devices, we prefer to judge less, so that we are less judged, less regulated, less controlled. Democratic government has a legitimate role, but a limited one. 

So, we are a bit off track. Horses are running wild. In a sense, we have been duped. We have been progressively encouraged by a divisive leader to absorb ourselves in petty bickering, while he assumes control of what is important. We have been sucker punched, enticed to nip and yap, bite and judge each other. Just read the latest White House press release -- on anything. Diversions, deflections, denials, and appeals to diminish or attack some aspect of society are standard fare. Worse, many political leaders on both sides of the aisle have risen to the bait, undermining the process of accountability by attacking each other. They are lost in a mire of distraction, afraid to criticize this president for some reason, and missing the main thing. 

As Americans, we have always been self-bounded. We are used to fencing our political leaders, not letting them get away with injustices. What has happened to us? Historically, we were universally resolved to prevent overreach. We instinctively refused to let any politician unilaterally fence us. We thrived on keeping them accountable. After all, it was Republicans who took the bad news to Richard Nixon: That he needed to resign or face impeachment. We need to start remembering that we are Americans first, partisans later. 

If we do not reign in a runaway executive, we lose. Tyranny comes with speed, an accelerating pace. No political leader’s “pen” puts him above the law. In this country, no executive branch official can unilaterally make, waive, subvert, claim ignorance of, or misuse the law for his own purposes. No well-paid counsel in the West Wing can justify abuse. Why is that? Because we have a fence. We call it the U.S. Constitution.   

So, now we come to the edgy moment. There are breaks in our fence, whole sections are down. As in past generations, it is incumbent on us to do the hard work of repairing that fence, getting a runaway executive branch back into the corral. It is time we use our laws, step up to principles, and admit what we all know: Few of us want a king, benevolent, belligerent or otherwise.  

What are the options? There are few. Debating impeachment is thankless, but may be coming. Lawsuits filed by members of Congress are interminable, and yet what is the choice? Arresting and trying administration members for contempt is fraught with difficulty, untested and laborious, but how else does one enforce contempt? Perhaps a courageous federal or state prosecutor will take his place in history, risk job security to articulate the actionable abuses of power we all see. Perhaps a mountain of articles will decelerate these abuses. Perhaps the wild horses will cheerfully wander home.

However, if these things do not occur, we must take the measure of who we are. If we do not unify to contain these real abuses of power, are we worthy of all the sacrifices that brought the Republic to this point? Is it really an option to sit by as freedoms our fathers and grandfathers died for are eroded, or stripped away? To allow the triumph of arrogance over legal and legislative process would be unforgivable. So, what do you say?  Shall we no longer be taken for fools?  Let us put policy differences aside and rescue our country. As we do not tolerate runaway horses, we should not tolerate runaway politicians. Keeping the executive branch accountable is now the main thing, if a very uncomfortable task. Ronald Reagan was prescient. Listen to the echo of his words: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” So let’s work together – on the Hill and in the heartland -- to get that fence back up, and to keep this Executive Branch -- all of it, top to bottom -- accountable.