Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Hillary's Emails: The Tech, The Whole Tech And Nothing But The Tech

As many readers know, I have my own domain which I use for email.  What many may not know is that I am also a certified network technician, certified PC tech and I have operated my own email server for nearly 20 years.  For 15 of those years I operated my server in my residence - just like Bill and Hillary Clinton.  (In recent years I have leased a server in a data center, which I administer remotely.)  All of this qualifies me to comment on the technical issues surrounding this controversy.

1) Security Issues

I am going to assume that the Clintons had enough money to hire a very good tech to make sure that they were not going to be hacked.  Absent more information, IMHO this is not an issue.

2) Bogus Excuse 

Today, Secretary Clinton stated that she used her personal email address at the Clinton's personal domain and server because she did not want to carry two devices.  The reason this is a bogus excuse is that it is easy for most email clients to handle more than one email account.  At one point I had four email accounts in one program: Personal, business, church and Civil Air Patrol.  It's actually quite common.  Hillary's excuse doesn't make sense. 

3) Hidden and Easily Destroyed Communications

Someone who is using a governmental account for email creates an indestructible record.  "Delete" does not destroy the data.  As Col. Ollie North found out way back in the 1980s, the messages are recoverable not only from the original drive on the server that the account exists on, but on others it may have been relayed through, as well as on backup drives or tapes.  Recently Lois Learner's emails - which we supposedly unrecoverable - were found on backup tapes.  This is consistent with a failed effort to destroy them.

Someone using a private email system such as Gmail, Yahoo Mail or Outlook.com faces much the some challenge in getting rid of messages.  Messages might be recoverable for a long time after the user deletes them.

When one moves to a private email server, everything changes.  Someone running their own server has total control over everything.  They can create and delete accounts.  They can destroy backups.  They can delete or even edit emails.  Most importantly, after accounts and emails are deleted the drive can be scrubbed, making recovery impossible.

A government official - any government official - using their own server, could set up accounts not only for themselves, but for any other people they wished to communicate with - inside and outside government.  In this case, emails between accounts on the same server would never show up anywhere outside of the private server and the computers or devices of the users.  It would be a secure and completely private way for officials to communicate "off the radar".  When the need for such communications ends, deleting the emails and running a secure delete or scrub program on the server and the devices would completely destroy any trace of the messages.  The only evidence would be the absence of any deleted files from before the date the drive was scrubbed.

This is why the use of private email systems by government officials is so dangerous.  It allows for completely secret communication that can later be completely destroyed.  In short, exactly what laws passed after Watergate were passed to prevent.  IMHO legislation should be passed post haste to require all governmental officials currently required to preserve communications to use government email accounts for ALL email communications - both private and work related.

It remains to be seen if Secretary Clinton used her private server to get around the law - but her deletion of mails she considered "personal" certainly raises suspicion.  If she wants to establish that nothing illegal took place she can have an independent computer security firm examine the server.  If it hasn't been scrubbed, then as many emails as possible should be recovered.  An independent agency - such as the FBI can then determine if any of them are work related.  If the drive has been scrubbed, the only reason to do that is to hide something..... either way, if she wants to be president we probably need to know.

Thursday, February 19, 2015



The Violence Policy Center (VPC) recently updated a list of what it calls "Concealed Carry Killers," claiming that there have been 722 "Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers, May 2007 to the Present" in a few hundred incidents involving "Concealed Handgun Permit Holders."  On cue, the New York Times, endorsed VPC's effort in an editorial misleadingly titled Concealed Carry's Body Count.

There's only one problem - the VPC's figures are intentionally false.  I have previously documented VPC's intentional deception and this latest report is more of the same.  The Crime Prevention Research Center has also exposed their lies.

Here are the facts about those 722 incidents:

1) 38% of these incidents were SUICIDES, not shootings of another person.  Most took place at home.  It should be obvious that a carry permit, or for that matter even a gun, is not required to kill yourself.  VPC wants you to think that these deaths are cases where CCW permit holder has shot someone else - something that is clearly deceptive.

Incidentally, the suicide rate among permit holders is less than half that of the general public!

2) Over 10% of the shootings took place in locations where a permit was not required or where carrying was illegal even with a permit - THUS THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE ISSUE OF PERMITS.

3) The VPC frequently counts both pending charges and convictions IN THE SAME CASE thus doubling the count!

4) VPC's figures actually include people not killed with handguns, including five people killed in auto accidents!

5) The 722 incidents include cases of lawful self defense, cases where charges have not yet been resolved and cases in which the shooter did not have a carry permit.



Fortunately, we do not need to depend upon the VPC's bogus report to determine how law abiding permit holders are.  We have the revocation rates for many states. In most cases, revocations do not involve abuse of a firearm - so these figures are actually much, much higher than the number of criminal homicides committed by permit holders.

The Crime Prevention Research Center has produced a report using official reports from state governments.  Florida and Texas have extensive experience with CCW permits.  Two paragraphs from the report are quite relevant: 

"During almost three decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida issued permits to almost 2.66 million people. These permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations at an annual rate of only 0.0003 percent. For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent."

"The numbers are similarly low in Texas. In 2012 (the latest year that crime data are available), there were 584,850 active license holders. Out of these, 120 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.021 percent. Only a few of these crimes involved a gun."

So in Florida - with 25+ years of experience - the chances that a CCW permit holder will have their permit revoked for a firearms related offense (the vast majority of which are not homicides) is 1 in 30,000.  The revocation rate for all reasons was a bit more than 1 in 500.

Even more significantly, these revocations take place when the permit holder is CHARGED NOT CONVICTED!  The conviction rate of CCW permit holders is about 5%.  Yep, 95% of cases brought against permit holders do not result in convictions.  In these cases, the former permit holder is again eligible to get a permit.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE PERMANENT REVOCATION RATE FOR ALL REASONS IS 1 IN 9500!

Again, using publicly available figures from Florida, the Crime Prevention Research Center has established that CCW PERMIT HOLDERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES THAN POLICE OFFICERS!  (Also see this page.)  Let that sink in - the people the VPC is trying to disarm are actually safer to arm than cops.  Of course, these same people want to disarm cops too......

Not surprisingly, the report ignores the increasing evidence that firearms are frequently used to save lives in self defense.  Nearly 1,500 of examples from the last two years can be found here

When the VPC and the New York Times have to distort and lie to make CCW permit holders look bad - when the facts prove exactly the opposite, something is very, very wrong.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Four Good Reasons For Gun Control Advocates To Support National CCW Permit Reciprocity.

Citizen Concealed Carry 1987-2013
It may seem absurd to suggest that gun control advocates should support a federal bill that would set up nationwide reciprocity (or recognition) of concealed weapons permits, but I think a strong case can be made that such a bill could be in their interest.  Here it is:

1) "Shall Issue" concealed carry permits are here to stay.  50 states have permitting systems in place - 43 of them are shall issue, meaning that there is no requirement that "good cause" be proved before a permit is issued.  Last year the 9th Circuit - the most liberal appeals court in the federal system - ruled that carrying a firearm outside of the home is a civil right under the 2nd Amendment.  Not one state has ever repealed their concealed carry law.  In short, the gun control side has lost the battle to stop concealed carry - both politically and legally.  If it cannot be stopped, the best thing you can do is to set uniform standards - and the best way to do that is a federal reciprocity law.

2) A reciprocity bill could be used to increase training requirements.  Currently, states require anywhere between zero and sixteen hours of training before a permit is issues.  Some states, such as Idaho, actually offer two different permits - one of which requires more training in order to be recognized in more states.  Gun control advocates could offer to support a reciprocity bill, provided it raises the training requirement to a 16 hour minimum - roughly the same required of armed security guards.

3) A reciprocity bill would encourage more people to get permits - even if their state does not require them.  Currently at least five states all permit-less or "constitutional" carry.  More states are considering such bills every year.  Under such laws, anyone legally permitted to own a firearm may carry it openly or concealed.  The primary reason people in such states obtain permits is to carry in other states that do require permits, or require them of non-residents.  If a permit meeting national standards was good in every state, more people in "constitutional carry" states would obtain them - and this would require them to meet national standards of training.

4) Gun control advocates might be able to get some things they want - such as expanded background checks - in return for agreeing to national carry permit reciprocity.  If background checks are really that important - if they really would do a lot of good - then why not trade for them?  Especially when what you would be trading is something you are likely to loose in the courts anyway.  So, attach background checks to the reciprocity bill.  Gun control advocates might be surprised at who supports the package.

So, there you have it - four good reasons for gun control advocates to support CCW reciprocity.  Sadly, I highly doubt that they will do so.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

A Heroic Gun Dealer Who Stopped Four Criminals From Stealing Dozens Of Guns Needs Your Help

In recent years, I have had the privilege of getting to know some gun shop owners - both as a customer and when I had my business as a computer tech.  Every one I of them I have met have been great people who took the responsibility of selling deadly weapons quite seriously.

My guess is that most people reading this would think of the need to do background checks to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons - and the need to maintain records in accordance with federal law - records that allow guns to be traced should they be used in a crime.  While these are all important, they are not the most important responsibility a gun shop owner must fulfill.

By far, the most critical responsibility is that of securing their inventory against theft.  The average person has no clue how much efforts gun shops put into security.  Bars on the doors and windows are just the beginning.  Every night, just after closing, even though the building has bars on every window, even though the doors are made of heavy steel, even though there is an alarm which - if tripped will result in an immediate police response - in spite of all of these measures - every handgun is locked away in one of several heavy duty safes.

However, thieves do not always come calling when the gun shop is closed.  That is why in every gun shop I have ever been in that sells handguns (the weapons criminals most desire) the staff is armed.  Every employee carries a loaded sidearm.  I had this responsibility driven home one day when I was working on a shops computers.  The shop was closed, but when the only owner who was there left to get us lunch, I was handed a loaded .357 and warned not to open the door for anyone but her.

This week, in Shawnee Kansas, the thing gun shop owners fear most happened.  The owners of "She's a Pistol" gun shop and training center - a husband/wife team - were both working.  That is when four armed robbers burst in.  Police believe that they were responsible for several other armed robberies.  They certainly were not there for money - they were there to take as many guns as they could.  They outnumbered the owners two to one - and they had the element of surprise.  What they did not think of, or did not know, is that both husband and wife were instructors who taught defensive firearm use for a living.

Upon entry, it is reported the one of the four opened fire on the husband - while another struck his wife in the face.  The husband - Jon Bieker - was able to return fire almost immediately.  While details are sketchy it is probable that both he and his wife Becky were able to get shots off.  We likely won't know exactly what happened for some time.   What is certain is that when the smoke cleared, two of the armed robbers lay on the floor, too severely wounded to flee with their fellow criminals.  Another was wounded, but managed to flee a short distance before being tracked down and arrested by police,  Only one of the four escaped injury - and arrest.  Sadly, Becky was significantly injured and Jon lay on the floor mortally wounded.  He died a short time later at the hospital.  He gave his life to defend his wife and to prevent the theft of the firearms in his care.   Not one gun was stolen that day.  Jon and Becky stopped that from happening. The cost of doing so was high - but who knows how many lives they may have saved, lives that would have been lost if those four men had gotten those guns and lives that would have been lost if they had simply been permitted to continue committing armed robberies.  In my book, both Jon and Becky are heroes.  

This experience has not changed Becky's views on guns and self defense:

“Thank you to my friends, family, and community for their love, prayers, and support during this very difficult time. I have lost my husband in this senseless murder. Although tragic, he saved my life because he carried a firearm,” Becky said in a statement.

“Guns are not evil,” she added. “I would not be able to make this statement if private citizens such as Jon and I were banned from owning them. Please respect my husband’s memory by refusing to turn this tragedy into a political statement in support of banning firearms.”


She needs help with her husband's final expenses and help to save her business.  Please follow the link below and give SOMETHING.  It all ads up - but we have to give something, or it adds up to nothing.


Monday, January 12, 2015

Washington DC Mayor Vows To Restrict Civil Rights As Much As Possible

Imagine the uproar that would happen if a Southern mayor said in a speech, "I know that the courts have said that Black people are equal to Whites, and I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution - but I hate integration.  I will do as much as I can within the law to keep Blacks in their place."

Imagine the uproar if a mayor anywhere in the US said, "I know that the Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and I am sworn to uphold it - but I hate Muslims.  I intend to do everything I can to keep them out and if that fails to make life as difficult as possible for them."

Imagine the uproar if a U.S. mayor said in a speech, "I hate being criticized - so I hate the press.  I know that the Constitution provides for freedom of the press - but I am going to restrict the press as much as possible."

Imagine if a New York mayor said, "I know that the 4th Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches - but I am instructing my police force to search as many "suspicious" people on the street as they possibly can.  If that results in more black men being searched - oh well......"  Oh wait, we don't have to imagine - that is exactly what two NYC mayors did and there was a huge uproar and the policy was reversed.

The press would never tolerate any of the above actions by a mayor - and neither would the Administration - or the Congress.  We hold our civil rights dear - except for one.  Consider these comments by Washington D.C.'s newly minted mayor, Muriel Bowser:

You have a mayor who hates guns,” she said. “If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.(Source)

Notice that there is no wishy-washy language about supporting the 2nd Amendment, but wanting reasonable restrictions.  This woman is quite clear - if she had her way she would eliminate a basic civil right, placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.  But since she can't do that, she will restrict the right as much as possible.  Having this mayor upholding the 2nd Amendment rights of her citizens is like putting the KKK in charge of enforcing civil rights laws.

Of course, the mainstream press won't cover these comments - because it would cause an uproar among the roughly 50% of Americans who own firearms.  True, many of these gun owners do support some reasonable restrictions - like instant background checks - but when you start talking about banning firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, they tend to get VERY UPSET.   They also tend to get organized and demand solutions.  Thankfully, they also have their own communication system, and they WILL FIND OUT.

Civil rights are not unrelated to each other.  Like pillars in a building, each one works with the others to support the roof - which in this case is is AMERICAN FREEDOM.  If you are opposed to one of our freedoms, you are undermining all of our freedoms.

So, what should be done?  Congress has looked at this issue before and threatened to use a simple solution that is within their rights because Washington D.C. is a federal enclave: A preemption of all of D.C.'s gun laws.

It should be noted that this would in no way eliminate all restrictions on firearms.  Robust federal laws - including background checks - would remain in place.  What would not remain in place would be the D.C. mayor's attack on the basic civil rights of her citizens and visitors.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Did Jesus Order His Disciples To Be Armed?

Luke 22:35-36 (NIV):  Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered.   He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.  It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."  The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

So, what was Christ's purpose in telling his disciples to be armed?  Some have said he gave this command so he could tell them later that they should not use them.  However this makes no sense because Peter and the others were already armed.  Furthermore, Jesus would have known - having traveled with them for years - what kind of weapons they carried.  If Jesus did not want them to carry weapons, why didn't He address the issue in the three years they were together?   Every other explanation I have seen fall just as flat.  

So, I took a careful look at this passage - and this is what I found.

Point One: Christ's reference to their prior missionary journeys indicates that the need to be armed is directly related to their future missionary journeys.

Effectively, Jesus said, "Your last journey was easy (See Luke 10:1ff) - but, in the future you will need to be prepared.  You will not have the support of most people."

Why would Jesus include a sword in the same category as money and camping gear?  The answer is simple: Traveling the roads back then was a very risky endeavor.  Robbers and bandits were very common (Paul mentions this in 2 Cor 11:26) and it was common for travelers to carry arms to protect themselves.  After all, 911 wasn't available for about 1950 years!  Travelers were on their own.

In short, the most logical reason - the one the fits the context best - is that the disciples needed to be able to defend themselves.

Point Two: The original Greek word (machaira) means any edged weapon or tool of any length.

While the context of most NT passages containing this word indicate that an edged weapon is in view, in many cases we cannot, in most cases, know how long the blade was.  Looking at other Greek documents is very instructive.

"Homer mentions the makhaira, but as a domestic knife of no great size.   In period texts, μάχαιρα has a variety of meanings, and can refer to virtually any knife or sword (taking the meaning of today's Greek μαχαίρι), even a surgeon's scalpel....... "(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhaira)

As is the case today, a knife of - say four to five inches - would be suitable for defense, but also would be absolutely necessary for everyday use while the disciples traveled.  It would likely be used for everything from cleaning fish to cutting cordage to cutting and eating food.  It is certain that each disciple would have carried some kind of knife for daily use.   

Point Three: The best interpretation of the disciples response is that each disciple possessed both a short and a long blade. 

Let's examine the disciples response in Luke 22:38: 'The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he (Jesus) replied.'

So what are the possible interpretations of this verse?

1) Between the eleven disciples then present, there were only two blades of any kind.

2) Between the eleven disciples then present, there were only two blades long enough to be useful for defense.

3) Each of the eleven disciples then present had two blades - one for every day use (a short, likely single edged knife) and a longer blade that would today be considered a long knife or a short sword.

We can rule out the first possibility as being impossible, because, as we have previously mentioned, at a minimum each disciple would need to have some kind of blade while traveling.

Moving on to the second possibility, this also does not fit.  On their first journey, Jesus sent them out in groups of two.  Both tradition and the New Testament (especially the Book of Acts) indicate that the disciples also traveled in groups of two to three.  It therefore makes no sense for Jesus to approve of only two edged weapons, as this number would have many of the disciples defenseless.

The most logical interpretation is that when Jesus gave his command, the disciples each simply opened their garment and displayed both their every day blade and a longer blade - such as a long knife or a short sword.  At the same time, they would have said, "See, I already have two blades."  Seeing this, Jesus said that this was enough.

Conclusion: Jesus did tell his disciples to arm themselves in order to be able to defend themselves on the road in coming years.

Please note that this analysis is limited to this passage.  The Bible has a great deal to say about how and when it is necessary and morally justified to use force, including deadly force.  There are many good articles on the net that address this subject.  I urge you to carefully read some of them.  That said, there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus commanded his disciples to be armed.

What does this mean for Christians today?  

First, it establishes that Christians may carry and use arms defensively - at least in some circumstances.

Second, the weapons Jesus spoke of were particularly suited for personal defense rather than offense.  Jesus certainly was not advocating that the Christian faith be spread at the point of a sword - if this was his goal, spears and bows would have been needed.  Additionally, when persecuted for their faith by governmental authorities, the Biblical record and history make it clear that Christians did not resist - just as Jesus did not resist.

Third, Christians need to be careful about advocating the disarmament of the public.  While Christians can certainly disagree concerning gun laws, calls for total bans on the ownership and even the lawful carrying of firearms clearly violate the principle found here. 


Friday, November 21, 2014

Why I Support Immigration Reform AND Impeaching Pres. Obama

dic·ta·tor noun \ˈdik-ˌtā-tər, dik-ˈ\
: a person who rules a country with total authority

First everyone reading this should understand that I am supportive of content of President Obama's executive order.  For decades we have encouraged people to sneak into the US to work here, often in the underground economy.  Both parties have looked the other way while this has happened - Republicans because some businesses want it and Democrats to please their Hispanic constituents.   Expelling people who have been here for years (often decades) would be as unjust as a complete amnesty.  A plan that enables them - after paying a fine, paying back taxes, and becoming functionally fluent in English - to obtain permanent guest worker status is both just and compassionate.

Second, THERE IS ZERO DOUBT THAT WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DONE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - AND HE KNOWS IT.   It is not an exaggeration to say that he has just made himself a dictator - albeit a compassionate one.

If this is tolerated, American democracy is over.  Pres, Obama's reason for issuing this illegal order is simple: Congress refused to do what he wanted them to do - so he decided to assume the power granted to congress and "do it without them".  Think about this for a moment.  Think about what this means in the future.  Quite simply, if tolerated, the House and Senate just became completely powerless and irrelevant,  If a president can simply bypass a coequal branch of government with the stroke of a pen, why should they even bother to meet?  The danger here is not the direct effect of this illegal order - it is the precedent it establishes.  If Obama gets away with this, what is to prevent him - or a future president of either party - from simply ruling by decree?  What is to stop him or her from ignoring Supreme Court rulings?  Perhaps most frightening, what is to prevent this or a future president from declaring an emergency and suspending elections in order to stay in office?  THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS IS THE SAME: NOTHING!  Sadly, such actions are the norm in much of the world, because the rule of law is ignored.  We are now one huge step closer to joining them.

There is also zero doubt that President Obama knows that what he is doing is illegal and unconstitutional.  He knows full well that this is an impeachable offense.  In fact, he has said such action would be illegal - on video - more than two dozen times.   He is a constitutional lawyer and professor,  He knows that he just became a dictator.  Consider these 22 documented quotes and the following video clips:

Yes, there are many legal things any president may do in regards to those who are here illegally.  He can prioritize those who are deported - ignoring those working to support families and otherwise obeying the law and focusing upon criminals.  He can also pardon anyone - including those here in violation of immigration law (which is not, in and of itself a crime - it is a civil matter) - of any crime they have committed.  These actions are within his authority as president.  He may also, when supported by underlying law, issue executive orders.  However, what our president has just done DOES NOT FALL INTO ANY OF THESE CATEGORIES.

Even MSNBC is questioning the legality of what President Obama is doing:

His order goes far beyond simply ignoring those here illegally who are behaving themselves - it grants them legal status AND THAT REQUIRES PASSAGE OF A NEW LAW.  A new law can only come from Congress.

One might also ask this question: What is the emergency?  None of these people are in danger of being deported because President Obama's lawful prioritizing of deportation.  When one considers this fact it exposes this action for exactly what it is: A RAW POWER GRAB BY A PRESIDENT WHOSE PARTY JUST LOST AN ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE.

Additionally, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this action.  According to this poll, only 20% of voters in the recent elections supported such an order.  Stunningly, 54% of Hispanics opposed such an order!

Dictatorships emerging from democracies (without a coup) seldom begin with harsh and unpopular decrees.  Hitler, after getting lawmakers to vote themselves into irrelevance, did not start with a decree ordering millions to be killed - he began by issuing decrees to put people back to work.  As I have said, the real danger here may not be what this president does - but what a future president may do.

So, what shall be done?

First, it should be understood that it is not just Republicans who are concerned about this issue.  Remember, this order effectively makes all lawmakers irrelevant - not just Republicans.  This, combined with pressure from voters has caused several Democrats to come out against President Obama's action.  Consider this quote from CNN's Jake Tapper:

"Several Senate Democrats are not happy with Obama’s executive amnesty order. Tapper said he’s gotten “expressions of concern about POTUS action from Dems” including Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Sen. Angus King (I-ME), an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also expressed opposition to Obama’s amnesty order."

"Before the election, Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Al Franken (D-MN), Mark Warner (D-VA) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) all came out against it too. This number of Democrats and independents is enough to overcome the 60-vote threshold for cloture to block Obama’s executive amnesty with funding orders, if the Democrats who said they’re against it are serious."

Doing the math, this means that Republicans are starting with six Democratic Senators who are prepared to go on record TODAY as opposing this illegal order.  Combined with the 54 votes from Republicans, that's enough to use the power of the purse to invalidate the order - and should it come to it, Republicans only need 7 more votes to remove Obama from office.

There are basically two ways Congress can successfully oppose this order:

First, and most likely, the Congress could split funding into several bills each funding an area of government - and then withhold funding from INS, thus preventing them from implementing the order.  This would leave the president with three choices:

1) Admit defeat and withdraw the order
2) Veto all the funding bills and demand funding for his order
3) Issue another unlawful order funding his previous unlawful order

Given that he has already violated the Constitution by issuing the order, I think it likely that he will choose the last option.  Why not?  It is supported by all the same arguments and is no more or less unconstitutional.   That will leave us with one option: IMPEACHMENT.

If impeachment is attempted, it should be remembered that this time it will not be about something "unrelated to his job", it will be about his actions as president.  Additionally, there are several unrelated scandals being investigated right now (think Benghazi and Fast and Furious) that could "blow up" both providing more charges and reducing public support for Pres. Obama.  Contrary to what Democratic pundits supporting the president are saying, I do not think President Obama wants to be impeached.

In addition to this, legal action is possible.  It is even possible that the Supreme Court could expedite hearing such a case.  There is zero doubt that the current court will rule against the president by at least five to four.  It could be unanimous.  However, once again, there is the question: Will the president simply ignore the order?  If he does, we are back to impeachment.

This crisis - and it is a crisis - is the greatest internal threat the nation has faced since the Civil War.  Every American who prays should pray for our nation.