February 2017

Though constitutional literacy remains appalling low among U.S. citizens (and, sadly, even among many members of Congress), most Americans have a general understanding and respect for the 230-year-old document. Nevertheless, and despite all the internal and external challenges our nation has faced from the very outset of its existence, American citizens are still (largely) free to pursue life, liberty, and prosperity. This is no fluke, but in fact is due to the Constitution’s clearly defined, written parameters in which a government must operate, along with designed checks and balances among and even within its branches. Both factors work to ensure no individual, agency, or branch can act arbitrarily, or declare itself the supreme authority on the law; all are beholden to the Constitution’s sovereignty.

That is, at least, how our Founding Fathers intended it to work, which is why the recent actions of rogue government employees involved with America’s secret surveillance panopticon, are truly frightening.

Here is what we know. Retired Gen. Michael Flynn, President Trump’s national security advisor, resigned last week after media reports of phone calls between him and a Russian diplomat occurring in the month before he formally took his position – calls he denied to the F.B.I. However, the media’s discovery of the calls was not the result of hard work by the Fifth Estate to uncover leads and evidence. Rather, the retired general’s demise reportedly was the direct result of illegal leaking of classified government surveillance information by up to 10 “current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls.” Given both Trump and Flynn’s rocky reputation within the Intelligence Community, revenge, rather than public service “whistleblowing,” appears to have been the motive for the leak.

Take a minute to let that sink in. Unelected bureaucrats feloniously took highly sensitive information, collected in secret surveillance programs for national security purposes, to launch a political assassination of a presidential aide, simply because they could. And, should this insubordination go without punishment, the ramifications threaten the very foundations of constitutional rule-of-law.

Given the extent of today’s surveillance state, it is perhaps not surprising Flynn’s phone conversations were recorded in a government database; after all, our government has long monitored calls into and out from the Russian Embassy (as we did the Soviets during the Cold War). And, thanks to Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama, both of whom vastly expanded the government’s surveillance powers, the recording of Flynn’s calls – regardless of what intelligence program or tool ultimately captured the recording – was likely “legal.”

This serves as a chilling reminder that we apparently have reached the point in the “Deep State” in which no electronic communication – even internal government communications — is safe from government snooping; nor is there any confidence that once monitored, the substance of a communication will be safe from someone in the bureaucracy sharing it for purposes other than reasons of genuine national security. The Obama Administration’s decision in its final days to further loosen the rules on what intercepted data the National Security Agency can share with other agencies, only makes this treacherous environment even more prone to exploitation.

In the past, intelligence personnel at the NSA have been accused of sharing nude photos of innocent civilians it intercepted through its surveillance programs. Of course, such childish misconduct pales in comparison to that when in 2014, CIA personnel were caught hacking Senate computers, for no other reason than they felt the Senate had wronged them regarding a sensitive document.

Flynn is just the latest victim in a disturbing pattern of reckless and defiant behavior from individuals embedded in the Intelligence Community who are unwilling to heed the rule of law, and who act to further their own interests above those of even the President of the United States or Congress.

Herein lies the most concerning issue. When unelected, nameless bureaucrats send a warning shot across the bow of the White House, it presents a serious problem that cannot simply be ignored or dismissed as an isolated incident. In addition to vigorously pursuing the individuals behind the felonious leaking of Flynn’s phone calls, Congress and the Trump White House should see this incident as proof that America’s secret surveillance programs are in desperate need of an overhaul; and that Washington should be reining in these programs, not expanding them as many are advocating.

Intelligence officials may fancy themselves as above Congress or the White House, but they are not above the law. It is high time they are given a hard constitutional rap on the knuckles.

Of the many words to describe Donald Trump, “measured” and “precise” are not among them. This, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing for a larger-than-life figure like Trump. His grandiose demeanor and over-the-top rhetoric is not only responsible for his celebrity status and immense wealth, but his political fortunes as well.

The hallmark of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign was Trump’s broad, sweeping pronouncements about the “sad” state of America; on issues from immigration to terrorism to outsourcing, and more. His ability to channel populist angst about the failures of the Establishment to address the real problems facing Americans was masterful, especially considering his solutions to such problems were no less vague and simplistic. The tactic worked, and Trump won the election. However, that was the campaign, in which exaggerated rhetoric and bite-sized solutions are a candidate’s stock-in-trade.

Serving as president of the United States, however, is far different; or at least it should be. A sure sign of this is the hullabaloo over Trump’s executive order regarding the temporary halt of refugees from foreign countries, and a pause in travel for residents of seven countries considered terrorist hotspots. On intentions alone, the executive order was both a reasonable and a practical first-step to ensuring America’s national security interests were not being sacrificed in the name of globalist altruism. Given Europe’s ongoing battle with domestic terrorism due in part to the flood of refugees from the Middle East, it would have been irresponsible not to immediately review our policies in this regard.

Yet, as the saying goes, the road to Hell — or in this case the federal court system — is paved with good intentions . . . and, poor execution.

Such seems to be the case with the so-called “travel ban” executive order. Instead of working with the various federal agencies involved with immigration policy — prepping them on the incoming changes and soliciting their advice for its implementation — the Trump White House reportedly rushed its release; giving little notice to Homeland Security and failing to have the policies properly reviewed by the Justice Department. The final result of what should have been a noteworthy policy change was mass confusion, mass protests, and a continuing court battle over its constitutionality.

The White House did itself no favors with the release of the order or in its subsequent explanations; using terms like “extreme vetting” to describe the changes, without ever defining what, exactly, “extreme vetting” actually means.

For starters, “vetting” is not a legal term, so its use to describe changes to a legal process only muddies the water. Secondly, the federal government (and the president in particular) already possesses broad powers to police America’s borders and ports of entry. Such powers include warrantless searches of persons, luggage, or vehicles; powers which the president or those agencies involved can change or expand anytime, without issuing an executive order or calling on Congress for legislative authority.

Furthermore, the Obama Administration frequently asserted the government’s right to inspect and detain electronics from all persons traveling into the United States, and to copy any information stored on those devices. Add to this the fact that U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently started collecting social media account information for those applying for travel to the United States, and you have an extremely robust “vetting” process already in place.

Thus, outside of any updates to the internal processes of the State Department and other agencies involved in approving refugees or foreign travelers, the government already has at its disposal a broad arsenal of “extreme vetting” powers. So, if the changes were, in fact, behind-the-scenes, why was this not explicitly detailed by the Trump Administration when announcing the policy, rather than brushing aside the changes with overly simplistic and utterly meaningless terminology?

Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with the changes made by the executive order, Administration officials, if not Trump himself, have a responsibility to clearly and precisely explain significant policy changes. There is a practical reason for this, as the chaos following the immigration policy illustrated. So-called “Green Card” holders were left stranded in airports — a result that allowed the liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hang their hat in finding Trump’s Order unconstitutional.

If the White House will not define its policy changes, others will, including Democrats looking for any chance to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump Administration. That is exactly what happened here; and guess with which narrative the Mainstream Media ran?

Trump has already proven detractors of his abilities as Executive-in-Chief wrong with several of his cabinet picks, not to mention his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Avoiding stumbles like his immigration executive order, by keeping in mind that he is no longer on the campaign trail, will help him keep this momentum and out of unnecessary controversies; otherwise, further unnecessary challenges and set backs will result.

On today’s college campus, there are two types of speech; that which is deemed acceptable by liberal administrators, faculty, and students — and everything else. It is this rigid standard of so-called “free speech” that conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos encountered last week when attempting to deliver a speech at U.C. Berkeley. Instead of being greeted by non-violent protesting and intellectual “counter-speech” — both constitutionally protected and acceptable means by which to address content others may find objectionable — Yiannopoulos had to be rushed to safety as violent thugs began destroying campus property in hopes of canceling his speech, in full view of campus police who refused to intervene in the chaos.

U.C. Berkeley once was a model of free speech and expression; now it serves as a disgraceful reminder of how low the First Amendment has fallen in Higher Education. And, liberal professors and administrators, like those at U.C. Berkeley, have only themselves to blame.

For decades, higher education has been the refuge of aging hippies and radical liberals lured by the prospect of shaping young minds, hopefully after their own; and, thanks to tenure, free from the risk of being fired for overstepping their bounds. Under the guise of academic freedom — a once-sacred centerpiece for classical education — these prima donnas were given a long leash, and allowed to inject a blatant liberal bias into their curriculum. Many of these Leftist professors then moved into administrative roles, where they went to work just as they did in the classroom to shape school policies – restrictive speech codes, sexual harassment policies with no due process, so-called “free speech zones” – in pursuit of the idyllic liberal campus filled with harmony, diversity, and tolerance. Except something went terribly wrong.

Beneath this thin veneer of campus unity was a system deliberately engineered to oppress intellectual content. In the early years, this primarily targeted traditional liberal bugaboos: conservatism, Christianity, and free market economics. Today, however, the toxic influence of identity politics has greatly expanded the “verboten” list, with demands that “trigger warnings” be given to any content that might make students uncomfortable; and speech seen as overly “white,” “straight,” or “patriarchal” is derided as “privileged,” and not worthy of debate, much less First Amendment protection. This is especially true of content labeled as “hate speech” – a liberal catchall term, with absolutely no legal basis, for particularly objectionable speech; but which is designed intentionally to deceive others into thinking the speech is not protected by the Constitution, making it easier to censor.

As this new political correctness on campuses took hold, administrators, who had encouraged or at least tolerated such an environment, suddenly found themselves on the defensive against protesting students; being forced to back down to their demands or risk being ousted for their perceived “betrayal.” Talk about being hoisted on your own petard.

The events at Berkeley were made worse by an apparent lack of effort to put a stop to the destructive violence intended to censor Yiannopoulos. Not only did the lack of action by campus authorities put lives at risk as the riots swelled without resistance, but this so-called “restraint” on the part of police – especially if ordered from campus administrators – gives the impression that such action is actually tolerated in practice, even if verbally condemned.

If – as now seems apparent — we can no longer count on University administrators to act on behalf of their students and the taxpayers that fund these public institutions, then the need for outside action is warranted. This is why President Trump’s response should follow that of then-Governor Ronald Reagan, who acted swiftly and forcefully to stop similar campus unrest in the 1960s. Considering the vast taxpayer dollars appropriated to colleges and universities across the country, Congress also must become involved; Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks should be forced to appear before the House and Senate Oversight Committees, whose members should demand answers as to why the response to scores of violent thugs by campus law enforcement was “hands off;” not to mention that no individuals or groups have yet been held responsible for nearly $100,000 in damage.

The brute censorship of free speech at U.C. Berkeley and other campuses across the nation must stop. The integrity of America’s higher education depends on it. It is the duty of people like Dirks to ensure this occurs, and if he and other college administrators refuse to do so, then Trump, Congress, and state officials have a duty to students and the taxpayers to make it happen.

When looking to “drain the swamp” of meddling bureaucrats and global do-gooders, there is perhaps no better place to start than on the banks of the East River in New York, home to the headquarters of the United Nations. And, with the United States’ newest U.N. Ambassador, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, sworn into office, there is no better time to start than now.

Four years ago, then Secretary of State John Kerry signed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), an international agreement regulating the sale, transfer, and export of conventional weapons, including “small arms and light weapons” – meaning virtually every firearm on the market. Ostensibly, the treaty was to prevent the “human suffering” attributed to the international trade in “illicit” arms. However, rather than promoting “world peace” and protecting citizens of member nations from the scourge of “illicit” firearms, the multi-year U.N. effort was a thinly-veiled attempt to engage in gun control both internationally and domestically within member nations.

Under the decisive leadership of the Bush Administration’s then-Undersecretary of State (and, later, acting Ambassador to the U.N.) John Bolton, the U.S. made clear it would neither support nor allow to be adopted any international instrument that directly or indirectly infringed any constitutionally-protected rights. Kerry’s signature on the ATT in 2013 reversed this approach, and instead committed the U.S. government — as a signatory — not to act “contrary to” the ATT’s terms, even if those actions conflicted with the interests and constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and not withstanding that the Senate had not ratified the treaty itself.

Now that Obama is out of office and the fate of the treaty lies in the hands of a pro-Second Amendment President, a U.S. Senate with a strong pro-Second Amendment majority, and a pro-Second Amendment U.N. Ambassador, we should immediately reverse the course set by the Obama Administration, which placed America’s interests in the hands of an unelected global bureaucracy historically at odds with our commitment to an individual’s inherent right to self-defense.

President Trump should waste no time in “unsigning” the ATT.

Such a move by Trump, officially backing away from a treaty signed by a previous administration but not ratified by the Senate, would be bold, but not without precedent. For example, in 2002, Bolton sent a letter to the U.N. formally rescinding America’s involvement with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which had been signed by President Clinton two years before but never ratified by the Senate. “[T]he United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,” wrote Bolton. “Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.” The move angered many on the Left who thought America should surrender its sovereignty in favor of “international justice,” but the Bush administration’s reversal proved to be in the best interests of the nation in the long-term.

In addition to putting America’s interests first, unsigning the treaty would also send a shot across the bow of the U.N., signaling the new Administration is making a clean break with its predecessor. This move would be win-win that aligns Trump with the pro-Second Amendment majorities in the House and Senate, while striking at the heart of one of the U.N.’s pet projects.

After eight years of an Obama Administration that did everything it could to undermine the sovereignty of the United States and the integrity of the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment, America must send a strong message that it will no longer tolerate outside meddling — directly or indirectly — in the fundamental human right of self-defense, and the guaranteed right to keep and bear arms set forth in our Constitution. Trump seems well up to the task, and is surrounded by those who will help him succeed.