Governor Palin is right, and I’m inclined to act on the principle that there is nothing to be gained by compromise with the GOP establishment. I am to the point where I’d rather have an open leftist elected to office than to see one more of these despicable, snake-in-the-grass RINOs who act like Democrats when they get to Washington DC anyway. Here’s Governor Palin from Hannity on FNC last night:
Posts Tagged ‘Media’
As the nation stands in the path of record cold temperatures, the media is doing its very finest to ignore the implications for “climate change” proponents. In Antarctica, an Australian team aboard a Russian research vessel became entrapped in ice, and now the Chinese icebreaker that provided helicopter rescue to the passengers of the Russian ship also needs to be rescued, itself having become trapped in the expanding ice sheet. The media reports the entrapment, and the rescue, and now the second ship’s plight, but there are two words they have avoided in coverage of this entire debacle: “Global Warming.” The truth of the matter is that they’ve spent so much time and energy propagandizing on the issue that they dare not tell you the facts: Any measurable global warming halted more than one and one half decades ago. Telling you this would not comport with their earlier reporting, since in all these years, global CO2(carbon dioxide) levels have continued to rise, but temperatures haven’t followed. According to their theory, global warming should come fast on the heels of any rise in CO2, but that hasn’t been the case. All of it is predicated on their desire to control human activity, and human use of energy resources is the key. Why? Simply put, the global warming/climate change crowd are statists who wish to control everything, everywhere, in every case. Accusing mankind of wrecking the climate is their sledgehammer, but the global temperatures haven’t been supporting their attack.
They won’t tell you that the very expedition the researchers had been wanting to replicate never experienced the ice levels that this new voyage has experienced. They won’t now tell you that the purpose of the expedition had been to document shrinking Antarctic ice. Therefore, team leader Professor Chris Turney dare not tell you that their ship became entrapped some forty miles short of the bay into which Douglas Mawson steamed in open, ice-free waters of Commonwealth Bay in 1912. Here’s video from original footage of that arrival more than a century ago:
These are the sort of inconvenient truths on which hucksters like Algore should spend a good deal of their time, but it doesn’t fit their tax-justifying agenda, so they refuse to acknowledge all contrary information. When asked about this, Professor Turney concocted an excuse about the ice that blamed it all on global warming! There’s more ice than in recorded history on and around Antarctica, but this fool wishes to blame “global warming” or “climate change.” It’s as though a cosmologist would blame the accelerating expansion of the universe on the long-debunked “steady state” theory.
Sadly, most Americans don’t see the big deal with the current Antarctic ice sheet, because so many Americans don’t realize it’s not Winter, but Summer in the Southern hemisphere. Mawson’s 1912 expedition was timed to make arrival after the Summer solstice precisely because ice ought to have been at its minimum extent. What the “warmists” refuse to acknowledge is that there is currently more ice in Antarctica than has existed for 100,000 years. At present, the combination of Arctic and Antarctic ice is at an all time record. If this is the case, the global warming hypothesis looks pretty weak, and plainly wrong, but the mainstream media will not tell you this. Instead, you are faced with having to trawl through site like climatedepot.com, which one could consider like the Drudge Report of climate science, or climatedebatedaily.com, another such site, and there are fantastic blogs like WattsUpWithThat by Anthony Watts. The problem is that to get any contradictory information, one must venture outside the mainstream media, or risk falling into the mire of group-think that pervades the popular media culture.
I realize that among my readers, there are those who have their doubts, and who worry that perhaps humanity is indeed negatively affecting the environment, but I would suggest to them that humanity’s impact tends to be localized, but not global. What now becomes clear is that despite all the claims of warming disasters, humanity has little if any effect upon ice in the polar regions. Despite the evidence, we have the preposterous spectacle of the ill-fated expedition’s media director, Alvin Stone, claiming that the ice in which his ship is still lodged is the direct result of global warming. You simply could not make this up. The truth is that despite all their rationalizations, the facts of nature do not support the foolish, apocalyptic claims of climate doomsayers.
Here are some facts you ought to consider: The life of our sun is roughly nearing the half-way mark. There is no source in our solar system that can affect climate on Earth like our sun. As the sun consumes its hydrogen through the process of nuclear fusion, it will expand and grow hotter. This is inevitable. The sun will make life increasingly difficult on the Earth until life here becomes impossible. While this outcome is millions of years away in the future, it is nevertheless an absolute fact. The truth is that on the largest time-scale, the Earth should be warming, and the sun ought to be delivering the added heat. When the sun begins to expand dramatically some three billion years hence, life on Earth will be at an end. Global warming is factually inevitable, but it will have nothing to do with your SUV, or mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
If that is too distant a timescale to contemplate, consider that in a mere one and one-half million years, the star Gliese 710 will pass very close to our solar system. Having roughly sixty percent of the mass of our sun, it will almost certainly cause gravitational perturbations in the outer regions of our solar system that may send many comets and asteroids heading toward Earth. Should that happen, unless we’ve concocted a practical method of deflecting or destroying these massive natural missiles, life on Earth could perish.
Still too distant? In the next several decades, there are at least two known asteroids that pose a substantial risk of collision with Earth. Should that occur, we may go the way of the dinosaur, and it will be an epic calamity that could wipe out the entire human population, and all larger species, though some microbes and slightly larger species may endure.
Is this still too far off in the future to consider? Consider then Wolf-Rayet star 104(WR-104.) This massive star is very near the end of its life. It could explode as a supernova at any moment. In fact, it may have exploded already, but at a distance of an estimated eight-thousand light-years, the light would need to have traveled that distance (and that many years) for us to learn of it. If WR-104 had exploded as agriculture began to spread into Europe, and the human population of Earth was around five million, we would learn of the supernova only now. Worse, we would have no warning whatever, as the arrival of its probable gamma-ray burst would punctuate its end, but also perhaps our own. There are many stars capable of delivering deadly gamma-ray bursts, but the proximity and orientation of WR-104 makes it more likely to have significant effects on Earth than all the others. Supernovae that emit a gamma-ray burst do so in blasts from their poles, so that much of the energy is focused in two narrow and opposing beams racing away from the dead star at nearly the speed of light. If Earth happens to fall within one of these relatively focused beams, and within a few thousand light-years, life might well be wiped out by the radiation. Though there are now some questions as to WR-104′s precise orientation, such a star’s death could simply poison those exposed to the radiation, or it could strip off the atmosphere and roast us alive. Some claim it could even vaporize the entire planet. The most energetic events in the universe are not a circumstance with which to trifle, and from our perspective, they could occur at any time.
The point of all this is to recognize the fact that life on Earth will end. There exists almost an infinite range of possibilities for how it will end, but it’s mostly a question of what gets us first, and not whether we’ll be gotten. The climate change acolytes know this every bit as well as their skeptics, but only the discussion of anthropogenic global warming or climate change gives them an opportunity to command human behavior. In order to control your lives, they must create some justification, and it’s nearly always couched in terms of some exigency. I submit to you that the hypothesis of “anthropogenic global warming,” or “climate change,” is precisely that sort of ploy. When I was a child, they spoke in dramatic terms of a coming ice age. Then as a young adult, I was bombarded by the global warming hysteria. In fact, the Earth goes through periodic cycles, as does our sun, and some of those cycles span many human lifetimes. In that context, it is foolish to pretend that what mankind has done or is doing must be the cause of every fluctuation in the thermometer, never mind to attempt to control all mankind on the basis of these fluctuations. Pretending that mankind is the greatest threat to the planet permits them an excuse to regulate all humans.
When politicians spout dire warnings about global warming, or anything else of dubious human origination, we ought to take the time to politely listen, but then examine their supporting evidence, or the lack thereof. Now we witness the ignominy of an activist professor, Chris Turney, looking for some way to explain away the fact that his ship got stuck in ice nearly fifty miles from where was once open water at this same time of year, and he absurdly claimed it is because the planet has been warming. I cannot say with certainty that mankind is having exactly zero effects upon global temperatures, but I can say with certainty that pseudoscience won’t help us, never mind save us. We don’t need modern witch doctors propagating their voodoo to a vast but sadly, too often ignorant audience, and the best way to combat it is to lift the veil of ignorance that has descended over the eyes of our popular media culture. Our lives and our liberties, and indeed the future of mankind depends upon it.
It takes a real moron to top the idiocy of Drew Magary’s original GQ piece on the subject of Phil Robertson, but leave it to Yahoo News (a contradiction in terms if ever there’s been one) to dig up a writer who’s even more maniacally stupid than his peer at GQ. Yahoo News posted a piece by Josh Barro, an editor at Business Insider, proclaiming: “When you’re defending Phil Robertson, Here’s What You’re Really Defending.” It takes approximately two minutes to read, but let me cut to the quick: It’s nonsense, like all that’s gone before, and only people detached enough from reality to get their information from Yahoo News are apt to be dumb enough to fall for his foolish premises.
He asserts the following, based on quotes from Mr. Robertson:
- Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. ” I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
- Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn’t believe in Jesus. “A ll you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.”
- Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: ” Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”
“This last one is key. My inbox is full of “love the sinner, hate the sin” defenses of Robertson’s 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn’t love gay people. He thinks they’re, well, “full of murder.” His views on gays are hateful , inasmuch as they are full of hate.”
Let us tackle these assertions one by one. In the first instance, Mr. Robertson’s view of the pre-civil rights era of the South is his own. He’s clearly speaking from the experiences of his own life. Perhaps Barro could consider, even momentarily, that in Robertson’s personal experience, maybe it wasn’t quite so bad as is widely believed particularly by people like Barro (or me) who hadn’t been born as yet. For a man born in 1984 (when I was a young private in the Army) to pontificate about the implications of Mr. Robertson’s statements about the South is approximately on par with my commentary on the social benefits of prohibition. I know only what history records, but my knowledge is hardly exhaustive. Neither is Barro’s. Nothing about Robertson’s remark on this topic suggest he’s a racist, but that is precisely what this Harvard-grad goof-ball wants you to believe.
His second assertion is that Robertson believes Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn’t believe in Jesus. That’s not what Robertson said, and while it stretches credulity to think he was saying that, what Barro tries to do here is to state the obvious: Japan wasn’t going to believe in Jesus in 1941, and one couldn’t imagine they would. I think Robertson’s point was a bit more sophisticated than Barro’s tautology implies. Robertson was merely showing that the mindset of Christians(believers in Jesus) has been rather non-violent in the last century. The ethos of communists, Nazis, and so on have been rather less tolerant, and seemingly more inclined to violence. Hitler’s gangs did all they could to discourage Christianity, as Barro is undoubtedly aware, and communism basically outlawed all religions. In Islamic countries today, Christians and other non-Muslims are routinely persecuted and murdered. This is not generally the case in modern-day countries where Christianity dominates.
He claims Robertson “hates gay people.” He then goes on to list a litany of things Robertson said about unrepentant sinners, but present them in a way that implies he had said these things about homosexuals specifically. Being as adulterers are in Robertson’s list of sinners, taking Barro’s view, one would suppose Robertson hates himself, having confessed to adultery in his own life. No, this is a pathetic attempt to do what others have tried over the last several days: When Robertson is asked what are sins by Magary, he went on to list a bunch of sins, a list that looks remarkably familiar to anybody who has read 1 Corintheans. He did not qualify them. He listed them.
I realize I am not the most sophisticated fellow, but I am able to grasp the concept of lists. If you ask me to list fruits, I might say “bananas, raspberries, strawberries, oranges, apples, and grapefruit.” This doesn’t say the first thing about which I like most or least, or which I consider the worst or the best. It’s merely a list. If you ask me to list vegetables, it will be much the same: “Corn, carrots, peas, broccoli, green beans, cauliflower, and radishes.” From this list, you will not be able to discern much about my preference for vegetables. You won’t even know if the one I like most or least actually made the list. All you have is a list that may or may not be exhaustive or exclusive.
As if to underscore his lunacy and lack of context, Barro goes on…and on:
“As a side note, it’s remarkable how often these things come as a package. Robertson’s sincere doctrinal view about the sinfulness of homosexuality comes packaged with animus toward gays and retrograde views about blacks and non-Christians. It’s almost as though social conservatism is primarily fueled by a desire to protect the privileges of what was once a straight, white Christian in-group, rather than by sincere religious convictions.”
In any other political context, it might seem odd how this writer seems to ignore the “sincere doctrinal view” Robertson apparently holds about Communists and Nazis. Perhaps what Barro is really confessing is his personal alignment with those ideologies. After all, Nazis all but invented the sort of propoganda Barro is spouting here, and no place more than Stalinist Russia exhibited his flair for the desire to silence dissent and create guilt by association.
“You might recall that conservatives are currently trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the Republican Party performs quite poorly with the growing share of voters who are not white, straight Christians. They think some of it has to do with economic issues. But then they’re scratching their heads, trying to figure out how Mitt Romney lost the Asian American vote 3-to-1 even though, by Republican “maker-vs.-taker” metrics, Asian Americans are disproportionately likely to be “makers.”
I don’t believe actual conservatives have any problem figuring out what to do, although Republicans may. What Barro leaves unstated is that the Democrats have carried the Asian-American vote for generations. Conservatism doesn’t have a problem with non-white, non-straight voters, so much as they have a problem with statist buffoons of the sort defined by Mr. Barro. He concludes with this bit of nonsense, in case you lost interest:
“Non-whites and non-Christians and gays keep getting the sense that, even setting aside policy, conservatives and Republicans just don’t care for them. The “Duck Dynasty” episode, with Ted Cruz and others rushing out to defend Robertson’s honor, is just another example of why.”
Mr. Barro, isn’t Ted Cruz non-white? Isn’t Bobby Jindal non-white? Isn’t Sarah Palin non-male? Isn’t Tammy Bruce non-straight? Haven’t all of these defended in some fashion the free speech and free religious thought of one Phil Robertson? This asinine attack on conservatives because they defend a man for stating his sincere religious beliefs has been extended now into the preposterous scenario of a Harvard-grad, establishment-bound numb-skull professing to us what non-whites, non-males, and non-straights may think, even as they step forward to tell us that Robertson has every right to believe sins are what may be found listed in the Bible.
Any writer who so thoroughly debunks his own argument in the span of two sentences ought to be ignored, and truth be told, so should any “news outlet” that publishes his drivel. Barro’s article drips with venom and hate, and yet he is able to imagine hatred into the heart of Phil Robertson, who actually expressed the contrary premise that he loves all people, even sinners like himself. Who’s the real hater, Mr. Barro? Apparently, I’m not the only blogger to take a dim view of Barro. That Yahoo News posts such bilge is evidence enough to click away from that site too.
On Tuesday, Mr. L had more than a few choice words for Barack “Mugabe” Obama. The nation is becoming understandably angry with Obama, and he’s more than tired of the dirt-bag politicians who are interested in compromising with Obama and the rest of the statist left. There’s no point to offering compromise only to be rebuffed by Obama and his henchmen. Frankly, Rand Paul should know better. Mr. L gets it right: No more compromise. Another excellent presentation from Mr. L:
You can check out Mr.L’s Tavern here.
One of the lessons most of us managed to learn in confronting bullies early in life is that few things can overcome the power of mockery and ridicule. The biggest, baddest schoolyard bullies are often overwhelmed when their victims band together and belittle them. The same rule holds true in politics, and indeed, it’s a standard political approach. Catching politicians eating corn-dogs, or making a mockery of their off-the-cuff comments has been the stuff of political mockery for centuries. It’s effective because most people like to laugh, particularly at the expense of the high and mighty. Who on Earth is higher and mightier than a US president? Who is more open to ridicule than the man who occupies the Oval office? We conservatives often worry that we’re not “winning” the public opinion because we’re painted as dour or heartless or humorless. Laugh a little. This President is affording us every opportunity to prevail as he undertakes every extreme action to enhance the pain of the shutdown for Americans. Yes, some of it is enraging, but it also speaks to the self-aggrandized view this man holds of himself. If you want to defeat a despot, mock him. Ridicule him. Make him the joke around town. None are more eligible for this treatment than Barack Hussein Obama.
It’s not as though we don’t have the evidence. After five days of the government shutdown, during which conservatives have taken to the airwaves to mock and ridicule this preposterous man, questioning his every action in light of his constitutional limits, his daily tracking-poll numbers are falling like a stone. Conventional wisdom had held that he could not be beaten, and that Republicans would take all the blame, but that hasn’t been demonstrated by the tracking polls. With every day this goes on, and with every joke that is told, Obama is seeing his approval numbers dip to all-time lows. If you want to know how to make a lame-duck of this President, it really comes down to credibility. After Putin humiliated him, and after a month of haughty lectures and accusations leveled at Republicans, he’s beginning to sound like an excuse factory. Whatever else may be true, the American people are catching on to this. It’s having an effect on his ability to carry out his threats. Think of the imagery of 90-year-old veterans at the WWII memorial being greeted with “Barrycades” erected by order of a president that desperate to make his political points. It’s an open invitation to ridicule.
On Saturday comes the news that Obama has “shut down the oceans,” and people are laughing about it. On Friday, it was made public that he’s ordered the Pentagon to shut down religious services in military chapels, and Americans emboldened by the zeitgeist begin to proclaim: “Obama is Furloughing G-d.” Now they mock his closure of Mt. Rushmore, asking if he will throw a curtain over it. Jay Leno asked his audience if they were more scared of the shutdown, or more afraid of it opening back up to uproarious laughter. The Obama-Reid shutdown is having precisely the opposite effect of what had been intended, and the more ludicrous the President’s actions, the more his approval drops. He tries to inflict more pain, and Americans are disgusted by it but then go on to laugh in the face of it all. At every turn, Americans are looking for new and more humorous ways to dismiss this president as the bullying lout he has become.
In social media, particularly on Twitter, the mockery goes on continuously. It’s having an effect, as each time some shrill leftist makes some idiotic claim on behalf of the administration, they are met with derision and mockery. The more this happens, the more it becomes difficult for Obama to have the impact he had hoped this shutdown opportunity would present. Early in the shutdown, the White House insiders whispered that they thought they were winning, and now, even that comment is mocked. Most of the Republicans in Washington don’t know how to handle this. Their heads are stuck in DC media coverage, and they don’t understand the mixed signals. From their districts, and in social media, support when they stand firm, while the establishment press insists that they are losing.
Naturally, a few of the smarter ones have instigated or joined in the mockery. Senator Ted Cruz has tweeted his share of appraisals of the Obama-care roll-out and the Obama-Reid shutdown, and it’s beginning to take a toll. Republicans questioned Cruz over his strategy during a caucus lunch this week, and the weak-kneed Republicans were bothered and accusatory, suggesting Cruz had “led them into a cul-de-sac” to borrow the phrase. What their shortsightedness reveals is how out-of-touch they are with the American people. If they understood the dynamics of our modern culture, they would recognize as has Senator Cruz that the American people are just beginning to engage fully and that they will demand that DC listen to their complaints. The tide has turned and the momentum is now gathering against the President, and if the surrender-set on Capitol hill would merely join the “Cruzade,” not even the establishment media would be able to rescue the Obama presidency from lame-duck status.
Given what we know about Obama’s designs and intentions, this may be the best way in which to stop him in his tracks. It may be the only way in which Obama-care is finally ejected into the ditch. What we conservatives can do is to join in the mockery and the ridicule of the bully. Obama wants to push old men around at the WWII memorial, and at Normandy, and anywhere else he can inflict pain. He wants to shut down religious services on military bases, and he wants to make the shutdown as painful as possible. We’re Americans, and we have always known throughout our history how to deal with pain. We laugh at it when we can muster the humor. Let us laugh in the face of this dictator-in-waiting, and show him we still know how to overcome bullies. This man won’t build a wall on our Southern border to keep out illegals, but he’ll throw up “Barrycades” around our treasured memorials? Such a man deserves all the contempt and ridicule we can muster.
Unsure as I am as to how much longer I will be able to maintain this blog, it is my intention to cover a few topics of significant gravity, whatever else may come next. There are certain things a man must be willing to discuss, whatever the cost, because the cost of silence is infinitely higher. What I will address hereunder is one such subject, dire though its context may be, simply because you should be made aware of it. As you already perceive at an almost instinctual level, we are losing the United States. As many of us have feared for at least the last five years, this will be due neither to an outside attack, nor even to the creeping, rotting decay now consuming our culture. Instead, we may now lose the country to the direct predations of an attack from within, launched by those entrusted with defending it. This attack is likely to come in the form of the final, functional abolition of our constitution. The precedents will have been set, and the last of the remaining constitutional checks and balances will have been removed by fiat. Barack Obama intends to seize vast unconstitutional powers, and we shall see the rise of a dictator in the full blossom of his tyrannical authority.
The final assault on the fabric of our constitution will be launched by constitutional law professors working in concert with an aggressive executive who will with crisis-born pretense impose his dicta upon this nation. The script is already written. The pieces are nearly in place. “Go-time” is drawing near, because this will be his last great opportunity to finally, fundamentally transform this nation into a cesspool of totalitarianism. Conservatives will call for his impeachment, to no avail, as the US Senate is controlled by his philosophical cohorts. There will be no undoing this peaceably, whatever some, even those near and dear to us may claim. I believe the probability is unusually high that we will now witness the final days of the Republic you had known, and this historic human tragedy will be visited upon the people of the United States by Barack Hussein Obama, a criminal now ensconced in the office of the United States Commander-in-Chief, who has previously hinted at his dictatorial inclinations.
Mark Levin has discussed this, even on Thursday, explaining how Barack Obama will make a claim of constitutional authority for which there is no reasonable or valid claim anywhere in its text. Levin still clings to a thread of hope that somehow, we will at some future date reverse this disastrous, wretched attack on our Republic by restoring it through constitutional process without reference to Washington DC. If he will have been correct, at some future date, we would find ourselves able to reverse this attack by virtue of constitutional amendments instigated by the states, but such will not be plausible, or even possible, if Barack Obama makes this lethal claim of authority. For years, leftists have been making the claim that there lies within the fourteenth amendment the authority for a President to ignore the debt ceiling in satisfying the debts of the United States. While such claims have no rational basis, the amendment itself stating nothing of the sort, and with a Congress composed of sufficient statesmen of both parties in both houses who would oppose it, there might be a chance. Sadly, we no longer have such a Congress. The President need not worry about opposition even from the House, where Republican leaders continue to plot the undermining of the country in concert with Barack Obama.
Here’s the segment of Levin’s show in which he discusses the threat posed by Obama’s anti-constitutional plot:
While many of us may have been surprised pleasantly to see Boehner and Cantor standing somewhat more firmly than in recent budget impasses, they are merely playing their assigned roles now. If Levin’s warning is correct, they will scarcely be relevant to what is about to happen to our Republic. Barack Obama has been talking-down the stock market, and he’s brought the captains of finance into his offices for discussions. Wall Street wants the borrowing and printing to continue unabated. They’re making out like bandits, robbing us blind by paying paltry sums of interest on money being dumped by the wagon-load into the markets. They want the gravy-train to continue, and the President is willing to let them for now. You see, like all such men of finance, they have accepted a well-worn lie about the power of capital and the efficacy of money. They believe money is the source of all power, and that as the cliche goes, it “makes the world go ’round.” They have certainly adopted happily the notion of the bastardized form of the Golden Rule: “He who has the gold makes the rules.” The problem is that their thesis is wrong, and in the end, they’re going to learn it. Money is not a cause, but merely an effect. You see, Barack Obama studied under a different philosophy, one that references directly the most ruthless of his philosophical antecedents, Mao Zedong, who in brevity offered:
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
The Wall Street types don’t understand this. Obama understands this too well, having been mentored by radicals Ayers and Davis, who taught him the value of force, and who understood that only violence and its threat actually enforce political power. The men of high finance are those who have learned that money can buy anything, but their lessons were corrupt. They believe politicians are always open to bribes, and why wouldn’t they? What they do not understand is that there exists a class of true believers, some good but many evil, who are not subject to this sort of temptation because of the strength of their beliefs. I now believe Barack Obama may well be one such man, because his vision for America trumps any number of dollars you might offer him. Bother now to ask yourselves what sort of historical monsters could not have been tempted from their pursuit of naked power for any amount of wealth, knowing that on their path, they will have access to all the wealth they could ever need. Attempt to understand by asking of yourself: “How does an unarmed man in the proverbial dark alley bribe a pistol-waving mugger to take only some of his cash?” This is the question these captains of finance and wizards of stock markets have blinded themselves from seeing. They still think there’s something to negotiate. Suffice it to say that by the time Obama is done with them, they will have asked themselves that question, even if much too late to matter.
Ask the Swiss bankers who folded like cheap napkins when Obama’s IRS went demanding account information on Americans. How many potential opponents were then neutered forevermore? What do you think that was about, anyway? What do you think Dodd-Frank is about? Those who couldn’t wait to heap more regulations on the financial industry will soon learn the full impact of that law. So will the average American when he learns his deposits are subject to be frozen or seized by whim of the chief executive and the Secretary of the Treasury acting at his behest.
All Obama now needs is an excuse, and the Republicans in Congress will give it to him, and he will be justified by all the lunatics who call themselves “constitutional scholars” he has brought along with him. These will be people who do not need the arm-twisting that was used on John Roberts in order to see things the President’s way on Obama-care. These are other true-believers. They see their arguments as being full of the same holes you and I see, but that doesn’t matter so much as the fact that they will make them, insistently, irrespective of all facts, all standards of language, and all legal precedents. Their only job is to buy Obama the time he will need for the controversy over his intended act(s) to die down, and for Mr. and Mrs. America to return to their football, their NASCAR, their baseball games, their “reality TV,” and the myriad other distractions that will seem more pressing and much less boring than an argument over the President’s constitutional authority or evident lack thereof. In that moment, the Republic’s death will be imminent.
If the President can concoct any old excuse to ignore his constitutional limitations, no matter how perfectly absurd or patently unreasonable the justification, the constitution will be dead. Absent the constitution, the Republic will no longer exist, and what you had known as the United States of America might still linger a while, even years, but its fundamental core, and its beating heart will have been stilled even if there is still a dimming signal for a while emitted by its expiring brain. What will he do? Clearly, all the evidence exists that he intends at some point to initiate a maneuver by which he will claim an extraordinary authority in the face of a real or concocted emergency from which he will promise to save us all, while driving the final nails in the casket of the Republic. Worst of all, he is now and has been conspiring to create that crisis. The time has now arrived for this nestling to take wing.
He has been talking a good deal about how Congress must pay the debts it has previously incurred, but this too is tortured language because Congress hasn’t incurred a debt until it’s borrowed the money. What he intends is that by the “full faith and credit” clause of the fourteenth amendment, he will simply issue an executive order seizing control of the treasury. There is some precedent for this, having been done in lesser measure by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, claiming the aegis of a vast emergency “almost as great as that of war,” and using the “Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917″ as subsequently amended. Obama will make the same tyrannical claim, but he is much more self-assured than even Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he intends to carry it to its logical conclusion this time. He will ignore the legal debt ceiling, claiming the fourteenth amendment compels him to act. Close attention to the amendment reveals that only Congress is mentioned in that amendment, and there is no mention of additional executive authority. This is the moment of the trick. This is where he will step across all constitutional boundaries and forevermore become a dictator, and since he will be largely unopposed, who will object? Harry Reid? John Boehner?
What the last week has taught the President is that he is running out of time. The mood of the country is such that he now rightly expects that on our present course, he will not re-take the House in 2014, and he will be lucky to hold the Senate. If he loses the Senate, his chances to take such actions will have elapsed, because Congress and the Republicans would be in a position to at least theoretically impeach and remove him from office if he threatened the Republic. His time is dwindling, and his opportunities to take these steps are expiring as well. Now may be his last, best hope to finally and irreversibly transform the United States to its fundamental core by wrecking the constitution that had been its beating heart, however bruised and damaged, for these last two-hundred years. He and those who have helped him obtain office and maintain it are too close, having come too far to let it all slip away now. Their goal is within reach. All they need now is to grab it.
As I have explained before, the fourteenth amendment does not authorize the sorts of action Obama is now contemplating, but that some in academia are now exhorting him to exercise. Today, Mark Levin discussed this article from the leftist Brookings Institute, arguing that the fourteenth amendment is the vehicle by which Obama can traverse all constitutional barriers. As I wrote last year, citing the fourteenth amendment:
“As to the proposition that the 14th Amendment provides some authority for the President to circumvent Congress, this is a preposterous claim. The relevant sections of the Fourteenth Amendment states:”
“Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”
“Notice that section 4 was intended to deal specifically with war debt accrued by the Union in fighting against the Confederacy during the civil war. The leftists who advocate on behalf of section 4 as a proscription against a debt ceiling are lunatics. It not only requires the setting aside of the context of the amendment, but also ignoring the subsequent section, that specifically empowers Congress to enact legislation pursuant to this amendment.”
We need not wonder any longer as to whether this amendment provides an actual constitutional basis for the actions Obama now contemplates. Flatly, it does not, and only the sort of tortured mind that labors in the basement of the Brookings Institute in devoted service to all things statist could imagine otherwise.
I relate this information not to frighten readers, but in order to arm them with the facts. The media will launch endless arguments if Obama should attempt this, and they will, along with academia, conspire to provide him the needed delay. Mark Levin still expresses the opinion that his prescription, using Article V of the US Constitution to amend it without the cooperation of Congress, and one must certainly give him all due credit for bringing that strategy to life, and we must try it, but I fear that Dr. Levin is grasping at straws in light of this development. What evidence exist to suggest that this or any Congress would act to obey Article V of the US Constitution. (By some counts, Congress has already received sufficient petitions from states to recognize a convention of the states.) If Obama attempts this, and Congress and the courts permit him to get away with it, the constitution will be dead. At that point, Article V is most probably moot, along with the rest of our founding document, and the supreme law of the land will have shifted indefinitely (and probably permanently) from that noble piece of aged parchment to the whim and will of Barack Hussein Obama. Game over.
You may wonder how he will justify all of this, but you need only let your imagination expand to the limits of what this malignant narcissist sees as his mandate and his authority. He is conspiring even now to collapse the US economy, which is why he now speaks specifically of “economic collapse.” This is why he’s going out of his way to scare the fire out of Wall Street. He and his friend Ben Bernanke have built the biggest bubble in the history of man, and he intends to burst it. Even before Labor Day this year, the price of gasoline had begun to fall. It’s still falling, and in the main, this is because general demand is low as the economy remains barely above water. To the degree the economy remains afloat at all, it is riding on an over-inflated life-preserver made up of borrowed money, leveraged assets, and consumer credit stretched to the breaking-point. College student loans now represent trillions of dollars of debt, since the government took over the administration of Federally-Guaranteed student loans. How hard do you really think Obama will need to work in order to explode the entire US economy by the 17th of October, when we reach the legal debt ceiling(which we’ve already actually surpassed, illegally?) That good old debt clock to which only a few Americans pay even scant attention has been frozen in place for more than four months. Do you really believe they haven’t exceeded it?
Obama was never going to negotiate with the Republicans. If they had passed a “clean” continuing resolution, he’d have concocted some reason to reject it with Harry Reid’s help in the Senate. Of course, at this late date, the Republicans would be foolish to do anything but stand fast, or risk losing such credibility as circumstances have afforded them. At this point, all they can do is press for maximum advantage, while trying to arouse popular sentiment against the President so long as they are able. Once before in our history, the financiers conspired with a president to set us on a similar course in justification of all he would thereafter do, but now we have a president who has set them up, and he’ll be using them for his purposes in a manner that the likes of Chairman Mao would approve.
By undertaking this approach, Barack Obama is signaling that he is ready to go for it all. In this moment of national turmoil, we will emerge either as a dictatorship with a smiley-face concealing big government’s scowl like a putrid death-mask, or we will find we had somehow prevailed and the President will become the longest serving lame duck in our nation’s history. This will be for all the marbles. It is at this point that we must reconsider that great intellectual benefactor of the Republic who urges us to follow the path laid down in Article V to reforge our Republic. Dr. Levin educates as much as any in the public eye, and his breadth and depth of knowledge on the subject of constitutional law knows few bounds. Still, in light of Obama’s presumed aggressive strategy against the Republic, one wonders if an Article V undertaking would gain any traction so long as we suffer under an Executive that willingly denies, ignores, and tramples the constitution. What good would it be if the United States government would refuse to recognize amendments instigated by a convention of the states and subsequently ratified by them?
At long-winded last comes the danger: If Obama undertakes this strategy as some now urge, and others now dread, our President will be in open insurrection against the Republic. He will be acting in clear opposition to the plain language of the supreme law of the land. At stake will be the question: “What is the supreme law of the land? The constitution, or the contrived edicts of Obama?” If the latter is permitted to stand, the United States of America will have perished. I have no hope that a popular majority of Americans now possess and will maintain sufficient outrage to compel a presidential retrenchment, else Obama-care would never have become law, much less seen its first days of implementation. This begs the question I would not now ask you to answer aloud: “What are you prepared to do?” Civil disobedience? What? Don’t answer this in words, but instead ponder the question, and decide for yourselves now what your answer will be when it comes to the real asking.
If Barack Obama is permitted to abscond with our constitution and its checks on his power, we might just as well bulldoze that memorial our aged heroes have visited, for its very meaning – their meaning – will have been lost along with the proposition that ours is a nation of laws but not men. This is what Barack Obama seeks most to overturn, and with it, to bear forth that most fundamental transformation with which he’s been threatening a nation and her people. At present, the best the American people can hope is to dissuade him from that course by open chastisement and vocal disapproval. The time may be drawing near when we will be compelled by events to answer that most dangerous question, and with its answer, to decide in finality whether we will remain a free people or submit to a brutal despotism of historic proportions. The choice remains yours.
It’s rather novel these days to see Republicans standing and fighting for the American people. They always claim to agree with us, but over the last several years, it has seemed that they would start a fight, ask us to man the ramparts, and then sneak out through the secret passage in the back of the keep. This time is different, and while I am wary of potential pitfalls, as should you be, I sense that the Republicans are discovering much to their happy amazement that Americans are supporting them in this battle over the continuing resolution and Obama-care. What the House Republicans and not a few Republican Senators need is to get their heads out of the Washington DC murk. In the nation’s capital, there’s little chance they’ll get a sense of sentiment throughout the country. They hear and see the mainstream media memes, assuming what they’re hearing is actually representative of the country at large, but it’s not even close. Republicans in Washington DC must recognize that by adhering to their principles and promises, they are going a long way to influence this fight, and the American people outside the DC bubble know what’s going on. The Democrats know too, because the media is on their side, but back in their districts and states, they’re catching Hell. If the Republicans will hang tough and simply do the right thing, the American people will join with them in greater numbers to beat back the Democrats.
The sad fact is that Democrats know too well how badly this is going against them, despite the mainstream media’s attempts to re-write facts in favor of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and the whole DC mob. Meanwhile, Republicans do not understand that the whole media picture is being aimed at influencing them. The beltway bubble doesn’t want to divulge what the average American thinks about Obama-care or the shutdown. Instead, it’s all about pressuring the Republicans and creating an environment in which the Republicans feel so thoroughly set-upon that they will crumble. Of course, we have a few bone-headed Republicans who have bought into this, but the truth is that we don’t need them anyway. Republicans should look at what’s going on in their districts, and how the average American out here in fly-over country thinks, and then realize that Obama and Reid are merely fabricating a spectacle with the special effects of the media establishment in order to make them believe they are losing.
This is why over the last twenty-four hours, the Democrats have become so shrill. They know they are losing, and for a change, more Republicans are seeing through the smokescreen to realize they are winning where it counts: With the American people. As evidence mounts that Obama-care is an unmitigated catastrophe for the American people and the US economy, Democrats are doing all they can to obscure this behind a torrent of inflammatory verbiage. Naturally, as it turns out, it’s the Democrats who have been losing this debate, and now it has been revealed that the national Obama-care sign up phone number is 1-800-318-2590, or 1-800-(F)(1)(U)(C)(K)(Y)(O). Do you believe this could have been an accident? This president has been flipping-the-bird at the American people since he was inaugurated in 2009. How well do you suppose that will go over with the American people? The President’s “signature legislation” and biggest program can be accessed though a phone number that tells the American people the real nature of Obama-care. The Democrats are losing, and they know it.
Now is the time in which Republicans must discover that they’re winning by standing against this national tragedy. They should hear the voices of their constituents, to discover how terrible are the effects of Obama-care. We must help them understand, because inside the beltway, they’re being hammered mercilessly by Democrats and media that want them to believe that they’ll take the political black eye. They must stand now, or be finished as a political party, and at this point, they should continue to follow the strategy of sending individual funding bills to the Senate. If, they buckle, then they will lose, because not only will America at large abandon them, but their own base will turn away in disgust. This is no time for capitulation. This is the moment for which much of the country has been waiting these last five years, and if the Republicans lose sight of it now, they will lose forevermore. The truth is that they’re winning, and all they need to do to achieve victory is to stand their ground. Now, it’s not only the right thing to do, but the only rational alternative for weak-kneed politicians. The Democrats are self-destructing, and the more they and their cohorts in the media lie, the more Americans now see through the lies.
Nothing to add to this video. H/T Sarah Palin:
I explained to fellow Texans in a note last Friday why they shouldn’t support John Cornyn. Today comes further evidence. In an effort to further mislead Texans, and in an attempt to pretend his cowardice hadn’t been, this deceptive politician, this un-Texan, has posted a phony poll on his website asking a question based on a false premise. The question itself is a lie. He asks: “Do you agree with Senator Cornyn’s vote to De-fund Obamacare?” The truth is that he didn’t vote to de-fund Obamacare. Instead, he voted to permit Harry Reid and the Democrats to prevail. His poll is garbage.
This deception brands this man as a despicable liar. To explain for the readers not up to speed on the trick, John Cornyn joined with Democrats to close off debate on the House continuing resolution, permitting Harry Reid to amend it. After it had been amended, Cornyn then voted against it, along with twenty-four other sell-out Republicans. His phony poll on this webpage(see screen-capture of site below) asks if you agree with his vote to defund Obamacare. HE DIDN’T VOTE TO DEFUND OBAMACARE! He voted to permit Harry Reid and the Democrats to strip the Defunding language out of the bill, so that he could vote against that amendment and pretend to have voted against Obamacare. The cloture vote WAS the vote. Texans aren’t stupid, whatever Cornyn may think of us, and I suspect that as the truth spreads, Senator Cornyn will be heading home for good next fall.
Here’s the sleazy, dishonest poll on his website:
A number of Senators implied or directly accused Ted Cruz of trying to use the de-funding push to raise funds. Meanwhile, Cornyn’s phony poll is nothing less than an attempt to solicit email addresses and names so he can later solicit funds. More, since the poll is based on a lie, he’s shamelessly misleading voters both as to his actual position and to the effect of his votes. Classic “for it before against it” nonsense! Naturally, there’s no way to answer it without seeming to support him or Obama-care.
We are at that moment when less-than-courageous politicians will think to waffle, turn back, and avoid a fight. If we’re to prevent that outcome, it’s going to take some Hell-raising on our part. Even now, elements within the House of Representatives, in the Republican leadership, are beginning to whisper about capitulation to Obama and Reid. In the Senate, we already know there exists a group of GOP senators who will be only too glad to put this issue behind them. It’s going to take a Herculean effort on our part, but we need to buck-up these politicians. This is, after all, the hard part of their job, and if they won’t stand and be counted in the tough times, who needs them?
Go to the House website. On that site, you can find your representative, and all the relevant contact info. Visit their pages on Facebook. Tweet them. Email them. Call them. The more they hear from you, the more inclined they will be to fight, and the more likely they will be to stand up to leadership if they begin to crumble. Barack Obama is trying to bully them. In the end, their own leaders may try to bully them too. Remind them who it is that had put them in office. Remind them of their duty. There is no reason Harry Reid should determine what goes on in the House. Instead of getting tough with conservatives, for a change, John Boehner should be tough on Democrats. It’s time for them to stand up, even if we will need to hand-hold them through it.
The media won’t tell you the truth about this, so I’m going to tell you because the American people really ought to know. Barack Obama is gambling that he will come out of any government shutdown smelling like a rose, but this is not 1995, and the same old playbook will not work. The media is trying to pull it in that direction, but the simple fact is that Obama isn’t doing so well in opinion polls lately. The obvious truth is that while Barack Obama is willing to talk with the Iranians, the Syrians, and any number of the world’s dictators, but he will not negotiate with Republicans. Bill Clinton is encouraging Obama in that direction too, but there’s something different now: In 1995, the US economy was in full recovery from a recession, whereas now, the economy is still barely struggling along. This time, the American people can sense that something is dreadfully wrong with the direction of the country, and according to a CNN Poll, at least forty-seven percent now believe Obama is acting like a petulant brat.
Naturally, part of this owes to the economy, but part of the problem for Obama and the Democrats is that the American people overwhelmingly dislike his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obama-care. American workers are seeing their hours cut, hiring has slowed to a Carter-era rate, and job creation is simply bottoming out. The young, now told they can remain on their parents’ healthcare until 26 years of age, are finding it impossible to find a job. “Let’s be clear:” Harry Reid is doing Barack Obama’s bidding, and this entire thing is their contrivance.
The American people do not want government shut down, but neither do the Republicans. The American people also don’t want Obama-care, and for the most part, neither do Republicans. For the first time since 2010, the American people have begun to see through the dominant, statist media portrayal of events, and as Bob Woodward observed today, if the economy tanks in part due to a government shutdown or due to Obamacare, nobody will remember Senator Harry Reid or Speaker John Boehner some fifty years on. They will remember Barack Obama and his role, much as nobody remembers the Congress that was around when we fell into the great depression of the 1930s, but everybody remembers Hoover.
I believe that if Republicans find the courage to stand tough, they may get a minor black eye, but they won’t get a broken nose, bruised ribs, and cauliflower ears. Those will belong to President Obama, and by association the Democrats. If they’re not careful, the American people may discover what is really behind Obama’s thinking.
Let’s just get this out in the open: Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) is a liar. On Friday, when the Senate voted on whether to end debate on the House continuing resolution, that was the ball-game. Once the number of Senators needed to amend the bill had been reduced from sixty-one to fifty-one, Reid was free to strip the de-funding language from the bill. Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) was among the twenty-five Republican sell-outs who voted to permit Harry Reid to do so. In tweets and in an official news release, Senator Graham subsequently claimed to have voted against funding for Obama-care, when that can be true only if you ignore the first vote for cloture. The simple truth is that Lindsey Graham enabled Harry Reid to modify the bill. Now he claims to be for de-funding Obama-care. This half-truth is really a whole lie, but he will seek cover behind the latter vote. He’s busily telling his constituents that he’s opposed to Obama-care, and that he voted to de-fund it, but he’s lying through his teeth, using the procedural nuances of the United States Senate as political camouflage. Graham’s constituents need only ask him one direct question:
“Would Harry Reid have been able to amend the House continuing resolution without the support of Republicans, like you, Senator Graham?”
The true answer, indeed the only answer to this question is “no.” Anything else is an attempt to obfuscate, evade, and otherwise obscure the truth.
Here had been his tweet, just moments after the vote:
Lindsey Graham is a despicable liar. He’s hoping that the old formulation of being “for it before he was against it” will be enough to get him past his next re-election campaign, but voters of South Carolina should know that he’s lying to them, and that they now have an option. Graham is being challenged in the primaries, and it’s about time somebody holds his feet to the fire. What he’s done in the US Senate has been despicable. His lies, misrepresentations, and his unflagging support of statism have earned him an involuntary early retirement from the US Senate. It’s now up to the people of South Carolina to deliver it.
Lindsey Graham had hoped to do what twenty-four of his fellow Senate Republicans had hoped to do: Deceive voters with a shell-game. Vote for cloture, permitting the bill to be amended, followed by a vote against the amendment, as the means by which to pretend he had voted to de-fund Obama-care. The simple fact is what it is, and lying, duplicitous, back-stabbing politicians hope to trick voters with this sort of thing. It’s really just a slightly different formulation of John Kerry’s infamous “for it before I was against it” nonsense of the 2004 campaign. It’s always the same. Graham isn’t listening to the people of South Carolina, and he’s gambling that most of them aren’t paying much attention, or will be fooled by this procedural dodge.
He may get away with it if the people of South Carolina don’t take the time to examine what he’s done, but he won’t get away with it here: Senator Lindsey Graham is lying when he claims to have voted to de-fund Obama-care as his previous vote enabled Harry Reid to remove the de-funding language. This sort of behavior has become increasingly common from Senator Graham, who has supported going to war in Libya, and who has remained one of the key drivers in the Senate for the amnesty bill, leading many to refer to him simply as “Grahamnesty.” Whatever else he is, he’s neither honest, nor conservative, and it’s time he was sent home for good. Most politicians can be found to have told a whopper or two during their careers, but Graham along with the others who are pretending to have voted against funding Obama-care after enabling it to go forward are simply liars.
Editor’s note: Senator Graham is being challenged in the GOP Senate primary by Nancy Mace, who is trying to overcome the Senator in a bid to replace him in the Senate. She may represent exactly what South Carolina needs in order to get beyond Graham’s duplicitous career in which he says one thing before voters in South Carolina, and another thing while in Washington DC. As you might guess, she has a few thoughts on Senator Graham, here.
On Sunday Morning, David Gregory interviewed Senator Ted Cruz on NBC’s Meet the Press. Gregory questioned Cruz for several minutes, and what became clear from the outset was that it was Gregory’s aim to somehow trap the Texas Senator. Every question was formulated from the viewpoint of a Democrat. Every contention of Gregory was constructed to obscure the trainwreck that is Obama-care, or to shield Democrats from blame. At no point did Gregory attempt to understand the Senator, so that Cruz was obliged to make his case clearly despite Gregory. What Gregory tried to conceal most of all is who has been inflexible, and absolutist, and who has been unwilling to compromise. As usual, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid in the Senate and Barack Obama generally haven’t been willing to listen to any complaints from the American people, while they’ve been willing to do the bidding of big corporations, granting waivers, delays, and carve-outs under Obama-care. This interview is a study in how to go over the heads of a hostile press directly to the American people.
Senator Cruz is absolutely correct: If government shuts down, it will be because Democrats, particularly Senator Reid and President Obama, have been unwilling to listen to the American people.
In the last several weeks, the number of analysts and columnists who have advised Republicans to accept Obama-care as the law of the land has been on the rise. One after the next, they claim in low tones that if only we will accept the fate of Obama-care “for now,” when Republicans re-take control of the Senate and the White House, we will be able to repeal Obama-care and replace it with something slightly less disastrous. Their prescription boils down to “elect more Republicans,” but I must confess that this “solution” leaves me a bit flat. After all, what good are Republicans, and how will they be elected in greater numbers if there is no effective difference between them and their supposed opponents? Instead, I have come to interpret such advice differently, because I can rely on history as my Rosetta stone: “Quit, surrender, and capitulate in a battle you cannot win because we haven’t the energy or will to fight it.” What all of these pragmatists ignore is the moral component of this fight. They forget or choose to ignore that Obama-care will have very real and often lethal consequences for Americans. It will destroy lives, families, and businesses. Even assuming we might elect more Republicans in future elections, that will not restore or repair all the lives that will have been shattered by Obama-care, and to ignore this in order to justify surrender is an impeachment of all those who advocate it.
Let us consider the first victims of this strategy of appeasement and capitulation. Already, more than one-hundred-thousand American workers have had their hours slashed in order to get below the “part-time” threshold as defined in Obama-care as thirty hours per week. If you had been a part-timer working thirty-six hours weekly, to get below the threshold, your employer will likely cut you back to twenty-nine hours. Having been schooled prior to the advent of the US Department of Education, I know that this cut represents a loss of roughly twenty percent of one’s wages. If I approached you and demanded that you surrender twenty percent of your weekly wage, you’d rightly punch me in the mouth. Which twenty percent of your income are you able to live without? This feature of Obama-care alone will result in more people subsisting on the welfare state, and more people thrust down the income ladder into poverty. On what basis can one claim that we should permit this until we elect a few more Republicans to help us undo it, when Republicans have sufficient power to stop it now?
Consider the Americans who will not find jobs because of Obama-care. Small businesses won’t be hiring despite having been the well-spring of seventy percent of new jobs in America for most of my life. More dependency. More poverty. More burdens for taxpayers. It means more shattered American lives. In the case of the young who are entering the work-force, it means arrested development in an economic sense, and it will result in more wretched conditions in young families, who generally need the health-care the least, since they’re generally healthier, but who will be held to pay for the health-care of others. What sort of hay-wire moral compass must exist in the Bermuda Triangle that makes real lives disappear into a sea of uniform numbers in Washington DC? This is abominable, but what makes it all the more ghastly is that there are those who don’t mind the tragedy if it somehow helps to elect more Republicans, though they can’t tell us why this would happen.
Imagine that the purveyors of temporary surrender are correct, and that despite any clear reason, Republicans are able to take over the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016, giving them the power to fully repeal Obama-care if they so choose. What consolation will this be to the Americans who have their lives cut short by a denial of life-saving treatment, or to their families after they’ve gone? How many more Americans will not be treated until their various afflictions become lethal because the wait for treatment had become insufferably long? How will electing more Republicans at some future date help to save them from now to the time of the supposed elections and mythical future repeal?
Barack Obama offers “if it will save only one child’s life, we must act” as justification for gun control, but such a view of Obama-care is not forth-coming despite his own cold, calculated prescription for Grandma to “take a pill.” He knows, as Congressional Republicans know, that Obama-care will lead to the deaths and suffering of millions. They even know it will not substantially change the number of uninsured, and we already know by virtue of our own premiums that it is already driving up costs. Nothing is good or right or moral about this program, and yet the advocates of appeasement and surrender continue to insist that we ought to just swallow hard and wait for a moment that may never come, particularly for those who may not now live to see it.
The advocates who tell us that we must wait on such a moment are of the same mind as those pragmatists who would not rise in opposition to slavery. They’re entrenched, but paralyzed with fear. They label their opponents “radicals” and “extremists,” and they cast aspersions at those who still revere Barry Goldwater’s 1964 declaration that “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” It’s small wonder that they rise in anger to the well of the Senate to bemoan their comparison to the likes of Neville Chamberlain: It’s not so much a matter of comparison as it is an identification. They claim to fear a destructive civil war within the Republican party, but what they won’t mention is that they have been waging it against conservatives for decades. They demand a return to the party of Nixon, Ford, Bush and Bush while what the country urgently needs is a return to the party of Reagan and Lincoln.
I am willing to wage a civil war within the Republican party, because by my estimation, it’s already begun, and there is no way to repair it to my satisfaction by any other means but naked, political warfare. The evidence is in, and there can be no realistic expectation that the surrender-monkeys – the Vichy Republicans – are up to a needed fight, because when it comes to identifying one’s adversaries, they are nearly indistinguishable from Democrats, too frequently collaborating with them.
We must defeat this impulse to surrender, because our country and the lives and fortunes of millions of Americans are very much at stake. To take the advice of the surrender lobby is to attempt to defer a fight, the costs of which are much too high to ask a people to peaceably bear. If they will not engage now, we must battle on without them, and fight them too, or first, if they evince themselves as an obstacle to victory. There is a deep moral crisis in the Republican party, and it issues forth from the mouths and keyboards of these advocates of surrender because they expect to avoid the consequences of capitulation. For the rest of us, who know there can be no escape or safety in delay, this war must be our urgent endeavor. While they defer engagement in order to save a supposed electoral victory in a future that may never materialize, we are fighting to save the lives and liberties of real Americans in the here and now, and it’s a battle we dare not lose because it’s as much for the soul of a nation as for the individual souls we’re fighting to save.
Given the direction of our republic into complete cultural, economic, and political collapse, it may be that drastic circumstances must call for equally drastic measures. On Friday night, Hannity aired a one-hour special with a studio audience on Fox News Channel that featured Mark Levin and his latest book: The Liberty Amendments -Restoring the American Republic. Hannity put up Levin’s proposed constitutional amendments for review by the esteemed studio audience, but the first matter to be examined was Levin’s proposed method of amending the constitution: Rather than wait for Congress to repair itself, a hope based entirely in futile notions about the ability of the American people to somehow force the change, he instead argues that Article V of the constitution already provides the means by which to amend it without the approval or consent of Congress or any other branch of the federal government. He is proposing an amending convention, convened by two-thirds of the states, with any produced amendments requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states.
For those who are somewhat confused about all of this, I would refer you to Article V of the US Constitution that provides for the two legitimate procedures by which to amend the constitution:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”(emphasis added.)
Bluntly, two-thirds of the legislatures of the states can initiate this process. Three-fourths have the ability to ratify them, just as if the Congress had proposed them. The difficulty of this process alone makes it entirely unlikely that the process might become a so-called “runaway convention.” As Levin responded on this point when asked during the course of the Hannity show, the simple fact is that there is nothing revolutionary about this process except that we, the people, have never initiated it, and it could be initiated at any time. Perhaps it is time we start.
Some of the comments on my last article on this subject seemed to raise the same objections, and while I understand the reservations, the simple truth of the matter is that if the statists existed in sufficient numbers that they could hijack this process, they would have initiated it themselves some time ago. There are clear dangers, but I think what Levin has here accomplished is marvelous for one particular reason, as became clear in a question from Breitbart’s Joel Pollak during the course of the show: The eleven amendments Levin proposes do not confront any political issue in particular, apart from perhaps taxation. Instead, they are all structural and procedural issues with respect to the federal government. Rather than attack a particular issue where the federal government can be shown to be out of control, they each confront defects in the original document, or in one case, reverse a defect imposed by previous amendments.
In focusing so tightly on the constructs of our federal government, Levin avoids the pitfalls of specific divisive political issues, leaving them to be resolved by virtue of a political process amended and restored to the framers’ intentions. In this sense, the proposal is at once elegant and simple. It is elegant inasmuch as it addresses the central failings of our national political process and the aggregation of power in the federal bureaucracy, and it inserts new forms of protections against a runaway federal establishment that imposes law and regulation with no effective check by those it purports to serve. The reversals born of such a slate of amendments would be slow but intractable, as power would necessarily begin to shift from the central government to the states. His proposal is simple because it relies on a process that is already part of our constitutional system, and need not be invented, nor rely on the approval of the federal establishment that would naturally resist it.
One of the criticisms that was raised had been about the repeal of the seventeenth amendment. Terry Jeffrey of CNSNews.com asked if returning the selection of Senators to the states’ legislatures wouldn’t hurt the civil engagement of the populace. My answer would be somewhat different than Dr. Levin’s, because I would tend to consider it this way: Which elections need the most bolstering in terms of civic participation? National or state and local? I would suspect that if electing one’s state representatives and senators would be crucial in electing members of the US Senate, interest in state legislative elections would be certain to grow. I might also point out that in many respects, this might well serve conservatives most of all, since it is we who tend to show up reliably in off-year and state/local elections. The so-called “low information voter” does not. To the degree this would draw more to the process, it may also help reduce the total number of such uninformed voters by engaging them in their state governments, thereby lifting the veil of ignorance behind which they may now suffer.
Indeed, one could argue that the seventeenth amendment had been contrary to the framers’ intent, not merely because it repealed their process, but because of its net result in muting the states as voices in the federal government. It is fitting then that even in Article V, the point is demonstrated by its closing clause:
“…no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”(emphasis mine.)
It could be said hereby that the seventeenth amendment deprived all the States of any form of suffrage in the US Senate. After the seventeenth amendment, States effectively have no direct suffrage of any form, thus rendering them voiceless in the federal government that had been their creation.
Naturally, there were ten amendments more than the repeal of the seventeenth discussed, including an interesting proposal that would permit the overturn of federal regulations by the states. There were also term limits for Congress, and there were term limits for the federal judiciary. There was even a method by which the states could overturn Supreme Court decisions. What all of these proposed amendments share is a singular focus on the construction and process of the federal government. That is a brilliant approach to reform that would have the effect of more slowly and carefully reversing our course.
I’ve given a great deal of thought to Levin’s proposal, as I have proposed some of these same ideas in some form in the past. As Levin points out, the Congress and the Courts, never mind a runaway executive have no reason whatever to reform themselves. If they are to be reformed, we will need to be the instigators. This then ought to be our mission, the effort of our time. If we are to be blunt about our nation’s prospects on its current course, it must be admitted that the future looks bleak. None should think this is a project that will be done in a year or in an election cycle. The fact is that this process begins with local and state politics. It means getting our state legislatures in shape so that the delegates they would send must be of a mind to author the kinds of amendments that Levin proposes here.
I realize there are risks implicit in any move to convene delegates for the purpose of amending the constitution, but the simple fact is that the constitution has been amended in a de facto methodology by the results of extra-constitutional rulings of the court, outrageous legislative initiatives in Congress, and the tyrannical fiat of executive whimsy that threaten every right of the American people. We are already nearing the precipice from which there will be no return, where plummeting into the abyss will be merely a matter of inertia. If George Mason insisted on this second procedure as the last effective rampart against federal tyranny, then I say we must exercise it. The only alternative is almost too terrible to imagine, and violence will be the only feasible outcome. There are many who make bold oaths, explaining that they would be happy with that occasion, but I wonder how much of that is bravado. Perhaps it is easier for some to make idle pronouncements than to stand forth and make serious efforts aimed at avoiding that sort of catastrophe.
When I consider even the simple repeal of the seventeenth amendment, I realize Levin is right. Such an amendment could never pass a Senate now subservient only to the Washington DC establishment, so that to restore the voice of the states, it will require their insistence and instigation. If you missed this episode of Hannity, I hope FNC will make more of it available. Here is the opening clip:
On Friday, President Obama provided an outlandish distraction intended to restart the media circus over the verdict in the Zimmerman trial. It was contrived, planned, and perfectly concocted to capture the nation’s attention. Obama plays the narcissist when he needs controversy, so it’s not particularly surprising to see him step into this role, don the virtual hoodie, and proclaim that he is Trayvon, or that Trayvon is him, or whatever crass proclamation he was attempting to make. It succeeded to the extent that from the moment he made this infantile, ludicrous statement, few in media have talked about anything else. The Zimmerman trial story had been losing ground as the lead story all week, so that the nation had begun to return its attention to more pressing matters like the IRS scandal, and immigration, all of which had begun to resurface as the furor over Zimmerman was subsiding. With this fatuous remark, Obama again succeeded. It was Friday. By now, it’s well-known that this administration always puts out any bad news on Friday. Which bad news was this constructed to hide? Which government action was this intended to conceal? When Obama pulls a stunt like this, we should be reading the back pages and sections of our newspapers, or scanning deep down the columns on Drudge, because this was purely a stunt, and so far, it’s working.
Like most of you, I am a busy person. This week has seen me work an insane number of hours, so that any thoughts about blogging died in exhaustion as my head finally met the pillow at the ends of my days. That is the nature of my work, and the chief reason for my absences from this blog. In that environment, I have occasions to hear news while I work, but not watch it, or read it, so that it comes in snatches as snatch can. At the top and bottom of each hour, there is a small segment of news on radio, so that when I hear that the President’s remark is consuming almost all the available time but for a traffic report, I know he’s succeeding in grabbing all the attention of the nation. In this sense, since most conservatives work, and since that means that most of them listen to the radio for some portion of their news, what Obama accomplished on Friday was to squeeze out all the room for any other news. He “sucked out all the oxygen,” as some would prefer to say. Let me now take the time to offer you a little more, now that you have breathing room to discover a sample of what the President may be hiding with this distraction.
Consider the embarrassing spectacle the President doesn’t want you to consider, as the city of Detroit files bankruptcy only 8 months after he took campaign trail credit for having saved it. It’s gotten so bad in the Detroit area that suburbs are now talking about building a wall to keep people from the crime-ridden city from easily invading their own communities. State officials in Michigan are now arguing over whether it is even constitutional for the city to file for bankruptcy protection. While this may not be enough by itself to justify the President’s unseemly distraction circus, it certainly adds to the picture. There are worse things he seeks to hide.
Maybe Obama wants to give a little cover to his golfing partner, John Boehner, who is now pushing the House version of the bill to include the “Dream Act” so as to legalize the children of illegal immigrants who brought their whole family into the US “in the shadows.” After all, that’s the apparent purpose of Beohner and establishment Republicans in Congress: To act as a fifth column for the Democrats. While we’re watching Obama make an ass of himself on television, they’re still trying to figure out how to shove immigration reform down our throat. “Watch this hand…ignore the other…” Also in the House, the Republicans are fighting among themselves about the Agriculture bill and therefore, the food-stamps budget. Once again, establishment Republicans don’t want to cut very deeply, while conservatives want to make substantial cuts to the overgrown program.
It is also possible that Obama wanted to draw your attention away from the colossal disaster that is Obama-care. On Friday, lost in the coverage of his remarks is the injunction issued by a federal court against the enforcement of the contraception mandate against Hobby Lobby.
On immigration, it’s clear that Republican members of the Gang-of-Tr8ors didn’t know that their bill permits people to forge up to two passports without legal jeopardy. First Rubio. Then Juan McRino. These two RINO hacks should be embarrassed, but they’re not. After all, the whole nation’s attention has shifted to the foolish remarks of a carnival barker of a President.
Of course, maybe the President wants you to ignore this story of an embarrassing voter registration in Washington DC, not because it is his, but because it’s a valid voter registration in the District of Columbia, using the name with which he registered for school in Indonesia as a child, with the address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the registrant’s address. It’s not so much that this registration has all that much to do with the President himself, but that it’s one further indication of why we need voter ID. It exposes the degree to which vote fraud is prevalent in our major cities, and throughout the country. Being the beneficiary of such fraud in most cases, I doubt he wants to talk about this.
With all the scandals over the IRS, Benghazi, and one-hundred lesser issues, and with the looming embarrassment of the crisis that will be Obama-care’s implementation, never mind the attempt by Obama and the Democrat’s fifth column in the Congress to put “immigration reform” over on the American people, there is little doubt that President Obama wants to talk about something… anything… else. One could look at market and economic news for more reasons to change the subject. One analyst is predicting “Dow 5000,” and as frightening as that may seem, consider that the rate of jobs growth has continued to slow.
With all of this and more going on in domestic news, it’s clear that the President has ever reason to want to change the subject, or keep us focused on highly emotional, divisive topics. It’s part of his governing philosophy to keep us running in circles while he pulls the virtual hoodie over his head. It’s what he does, and all the scoundrels in government around the country, but particularly in Washington DC love it, because while we’re watching his circus act, we’re not looking at them.
Readers of this site are often treated to predictions of doom and gloom; reports of misdeeds and malfeasance; foreshadowing of despair and sorrow, but on this day, we ought to take a moment to quietly celebrate the fact that despite all the treachery aligned against her, Justice still succeeds in America precisely because there are so many good and diligent people still among us. George Zimmerman was acquitted Saturday night on all charges, and whatever we may individually think of the case and Mr. Zimmerman, for the jury to have arrived at a “not guilty” verdict speaks to the fact that despite all the wrenches thrown with malice into the gears of the ordinary legal process in this case, six average Americans were able to arrive at a verdict that went against every bias that might well have stymied Justice among folk of lesser character. Threats of violence notwithstanding, outrageous statements by reporters and lawyers in media no more fruitful, these six jurors dared to decide the case on the basis of its merits. They upheld the rule of law in the face of a myriad of reasons that might have stopped them, save only one: They took their duty as jurors seriously, and decided the case with the full measure of diligence it deserved. This ought to tell us at least one thing about America that in our constant depression over the country’s state that we must not forget: It isn’t over yet.
Justice still prevails in America, and that ought to be reason enough to celebrate. I do not intend here to gloat about the particular outcome, but instead hope to explain to you why this should give heart to every American of good will. Even with the grim spectacle of Florida Attorney Angela Cory’s bizarre and hateful attempt to retry the case in the press, having lost it only moments before, justice did prevail. I know this because had there been even a sliver of evidence to support the prosecutors’ case against George Zimmerman, he would have been found guilty because the pressure being placed on this jury by the entire media spectacle must have been obnoxious. For them to return a “not guilty” can only mean that despite all the ploys of the prosecution, and the tampering of the judge, even with all the media attention on the courtroom, these six women sat down to deliberate the case and came out with a verdict that all the pressure in the world made into the most difficult of them, except that in the end, they could not adhere to anything but the law and the evidence. It is a marvel in this age of politicizing everything. Whatever they may have felt about George Zimmerman at the conclusion of this show trial, they managed to see through it to justice.
Based on the testimony and evidence I had seen replayed or recounted in reports, it was difficult to imagine how they would convict him under the “reasonable doubt” standard. In my view, the case put on by prosecutors with respect to the evidence and the testimony of witnesses was largely exculpatory, irrespective of all the emotion the prosecutors poured into the mix in a shameless attempt at misdirection. The fact that this had been a political trial instigated by political hacks insistent upon pandering did not overwhelm the good sense of the jurors and their ability to reasonably apply the law to the case laid out before them. In this country, with the vast leftwing conspiracy of goons all agitating in one direction, these six jurors sent an unimpeachable message by their verdict that must serve as a searing reproach to all those who sought to tamper with the process: Justice still works in America.
It will be tempting to dismiss this instance in which justice had prevailed as an aberration, but the fact is that in most cases, in most places, at most times around the country, justice prevails when the stakes are high. There will always be those infamous cases that prove the contrary thesis, but even at this late date, and perhaps more importantly because of this nation’s creeping devolution, it is all the more heartening to see the law more faithfully observed and measured by six ordinary Floridians than by five of nine Supreme Court justices. Consider this while insisting that we cannot save the country. Do you believe it will be saved by some grand stroke? If America is to be saved, it will have been because ordinary Americans in cases big and small took a stand on the side of justice. Not “racial justice.” Not “environmental justice.” Not “social justice.” Instead, plain, old-fashioned, uncorrupted, scales-and-sword with blind-fold Justice will be the thing that can save our nation. It had been six ordinary women who were willing to wear the blind-folds and weigh with the scruples of saints and the fine precision of jewelers, willing only to raise their sword if their measuring had demanded it.
I recognize that on this morning, there exists some sizable proportion of the American populace who remain unsatisfied with this result, but I beg them to accept it as a first step back toward the ideals that had been our American dream even when we have not always achieved it. I also offer a cautionary note, because what this verdict means and should be understood to describe is a country in which it is still quite normal for ordinary citizens to rise to the occasion and mete out justice as the situation demands. For those who would take their dissatisfaction violently into the streets, they should know that there will be courtrooms in their futures too, and with any luck, juries that will be equally diligent when sitting in judgment.
There are those who ask me how I can possess any glimmer of hope for this country, but I contend that the evidence is all around us, even if it isn’t writ large on television screens. It has ever been the diligence and forthright character of ordinary Americans pressed by circumstance into civic duty who have given me such hope as I still possess, and on Saturday in Florida, six of them did not disappoint. America is not over.
Some of you will be familiar with this speaker, Adrienne Ross, who writes at MotivationTruth, as well as a contributing to C4P, and this speech to Cape County(MO) Republican Women’s Club, is a great candid approach to expanding the appeal of conservatism to a wider audience. She makes plain here the importance of expanding the reach of the conservative message, and in so doing, debunks a body of lies that is accepted in the media culture and political establishment as fact. One of the things that has confounded many conservatives is how they can extend their message into a community that so often shares social ideas with conservatism, but who have become estranged by sixty years of identity politics. Is there a way to bridge the gap? Ross has her own ideas on the subject. Here’s the video:
Mark Levin introduced his audience to the conceptual aim of his forthcoming book on Wednesday evening. Titled The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, the book is set to be released on August 13th, although it can be pre-ordered on Amazon now. His basic premise is this: In all the history of the United States, governed under the constitution arising from the convention begun in 1787, and completed in 1791, there have been twenty-seven amendments successfully ratified, all arising through the Article V. process that permits two-thirds of both the House and Senate to propose an amendment, leaving it to three-fourths of the states to ratify and enact it. Dr. Levin rightly points out that the second course offered by Article V has never been exercised, and it is this recourse by which we must seek our national restoration. The second alternative is to seek a convention to amend the constitution, without interference or obstruction by the Federal Congress. In suggesting this alternative, Levin explains why this process was created, and how we might now use it to bring the Federal government to heel. It’s admittedly a long shot, but it may be the only course now remaining.
For those not familiar with Article V, here is the entire text, with the relevant clauses emphasized:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”-US CONST ART V
Many fear that such an amending convention would result in a chaotic process that would effectively rewrite and thereby overthrow the existing constitution, but as Levin explained Wednesday, there need be no such effect because any amendments proposed would still require the approval of three-fourths of states(thirty-eight of fifty,) in order to be ratified. In his coming book, he is introducing eleven “Liberty Amendments” as a means to put in place much-need restraints on our increasingly out-of-control government.
I sincerely hope that among them, he will call for the repeal of the seventeenth amendment, a blight on our system of checks and balances from which this country now suffers mightily. Over the course of this blog, I have introduced other ideas for amendments, and as a matter of curiosity, but also as a matter of interest as an activist in pursuit of liberty. We desperately need to think about this, and to bring this to the attention of our fellow Americans, who may not understand it, may not recognize its value, and may not otherwise be exposed to the reasoning for taking this approach.
Levin’s explanation is simple in broad terms: The Federal government has grown to an extent that it can no longer be relied upon as the instrument by which it will be disciplined. Even if the task seems impossible, both as an educational and preparatory exercise, it is important to pursue this course. As Levin explained it, if the Federal government’s current course causes the catastrophic results we can reasonably expect, it would be best if the American people already had freshly in mind the manner by which to force reform down the Federal government’s throat without resorting to violence and upheaval.
We conservatives know where our government’s current path will lead, and we’re also informed as to the unambiguous intransigence of the current Federal leviathan. We cannot rely on Washington DC, or any of the branches of our Federal government to restrain or discipline themselves in any way. Even in such a states-based effort, the Federal establishment in Washington would do everything it is able to impede, obstruct, and ultimately blunt the effects of any such effort. As Levin further contended, if the Federal government, specifically the Congress, endeavored to break with the rules of the process as outlined in Article V, this would indeed act as a probably trigger for the last resort to which a free people may turn in the face of tyranny. After all, if the Federal government itself became so lawless that it would ignore specific constitutional processes, that government is itself in anarchy and may no longer lay legitimate claim to the authority to govern.
Government needs a good spanking, and we cannot rely on this pack of spoiled children and their enablers to deliver it. We will need to rise up, to educate, and to use the processes already available under the constitution to impose our will on the government, whether it can be accomplished by efforts in time of peace and relative prosperity, or will be delayed until exigency demands it, and dramatic reform may no longer be denied. As has been oft-quoted by government officials, particularly in the judiciary, the US Constitution is not a “suicide pact,” but this works in both directions. It is not a suicide pact most of all for we the people, and it is time we reassert it supremacy as the foundation of our law, and the basis for our nation’s long-enjoyed prosperity and liberty.
This makes all the more important the efforts of grass-roots groups, such as the Tea Party and any sort of “Freedom Faction” that might arise to challenge the existing establishment, because this approach will require the broadest demands of the people working in every state in the union. None should be deluded into thinking such an undertaking will occur in one election cycle, or any number of them, without a persistent and unrelenting dedication of purpose. Once again, let history record that we had been the people equal to the task of self-governance. Let it be said of us that we gave it our fullest measure of devotion, for the country and the constitution we still love and revere, that our children and grandchildren might yet inherit its fullest blessings.
Note: Site modifications and updates are still being brought online in phases. Some of the largest chores are yet to be done, and I intend to carry them out Friday night or in one case, Saturday night. Visitors in the wee hours of the morning are likely to experience sporadic outages. Thank you for your continued patience.
Subscriber and long-time commenter on this site “The Unit” posted a link to the following video in comments yesterday as an example of the kind of problems we conservatives face in trying to rescue this nation. It’s from Mark Dice, and it’s a man-on-the-street style interview. Dice doesn’t bother even beginning with fact-based question, and it’s stunning to see what sort of responses he receives. I can only hope that he was rigging this by providing only the very worst answers. Nevertheless, public education is broken. It’s sad, and it’s pathetic, and it explains too well why our nation is imperiled.
May we be delivered from stupidity. I wonder how many taxpayer dollars were spent on education on behalf of these respondents?
As readers of this blog know well, many conservatives are fuming over the GOP’s sell-out on immigration, but the truth is that the betrayals have been far more numerous than this single issue. Since taking back the House in 2011, mostly powered by Tea Party vigor, the Republican Party has been unresponsive to the concerns and legislative priorities of conservatives generally. There’s no need to recite the litany of betrayals here, but with immigration and the budget as well as debt ceiling surrenders, the GOP hasn’t been carrying out its mandate to obstruct Barack Obama’s agenda to fundamentally transform the United States. On FoxNews, near the close of a segment on America’s News Headquarters, Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin answered a Twitter question from Josh Painter about the possibility of breaking away from the Republican Party along with Mark Levin to form something he called provisionally the “Freedom Party:”
As a matter of full disclosure, while I haven’t met fellow Texan Josh Painter, he is indeed a friend of this blog and many of you will be familiar with his web site. His question was not surprising, because his tweets over time indicate his own heightened disgust with the GOP establishment and the betrayals they have heaped upon the conservative base. Governor Palin answered the question, making plain her own dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Republican Party has been ignoring the will of common sense conservatives. Here is that response(H/T Daily Caller):
It’s clear from her response that she too is feeling betrayed by the GOP in Washington DC, and in truth, Gov. Palin has had to fight against corruption in the Republican Party through much of her political career. It’s no coincidence that she finds favor among the conservative base that so dutifully supports the GOP often times for a lack of better options. Should the moment arrive that conservatives finally decide to abandon the GOP, I suspect Gov. Palin would be among the first to break ranks simply because like so many of us, she does possess that independent, slightly libertarian streak that courses through most real conservatives. A party named for its primary object makes sense to me, and apparently, to Gov. Palin too. Whether a break-away party materializes, we must be prepared to move to support it because quite bluntly, the GOP has been unwilling to move in our direction despite the fact that when conservatives run as conservatives, they win. Combining the intransigence of the Republican Party with its long string of abuses and betrayals of its conservative base, abandoning it may be the only rational choice conservatives may now make.
Painter’s idea of a “Freedom Party” is right up my own alley. I have discussed this sort of thing, and the idea of a political party seeking to re-establish liberty in America is more than a little attractive to me. For too long, we have suffered at the hands of two political parties that seem too often to be extensions of one another rather than actual opponents on an ideological or cultural field of battle. As is clear from the title of this posting, you know my feelings on the matter, but I’d like to gauge yours with a brief poll:
What should serve as a clear warning-shot to the GOP establishment will likely go unheeded, but it’s time for Republican voters to consider re-enfranchising themselves by ditching the Republican Party. In a posting on Facebook, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had some strong words for the bankrupt, insider Republican establishment in Washington DC over their betrayal of their voters – indeed most Americans – on the issue of immigration. It should come as no particular surprise that as the Beltway Republicans continue to stiff their voters, Governor Palin is again among the few voices willing to stand and be counted in opposition. She isn’t willing to abandon the country’s future to the intransigence of Washington politicians, be they Democrats or Republicans. Demonstrating her commitment to our country, Gov. Palin wasted no time in boiling the issue down to its vital essence:
“Please take a look at the article linked below to understand how the amnesty bill the Senate passed yesterday is a sad betrayal of working class Americans of every ethnicity who will see their wages lowered and their upward mobility lowered too. And yet we still do not have a secured border. This Senate-approved amnesty bill rewards lawbreakers and won’t solve any problems – as the CBO report notes that millions of more illegal immigrants will continue to flood the U.S. in coming years.”
This critique of the bill sums up the shortcomings of the legislation as well as the attitude of the GOP establishment in Washington DC.
“Great job, GOP establishment. You’ve just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this amnesty bill, and we needed them to “enlarge that tent” of which you so often speak. It’s depressing to consider that the House of Representatives is threatening to pass some version of this nonsensical bill in the coming weeks.”
Here, Palin alludes to the fact that whatever the House may pass, what comes out of conference is likely to resemble the Senate bill as I explained Friday morning.
“Once again, I’ll point out the obvious to you: it was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the Hispanic vote. Legal immigrants respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this amnesty bill with favors, earmarks, and crony capitalists’ pork, and call it good. You disrespect Hispanics with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law.”
Again, cutting through the fluff of the DC consultancy class that has claimed that all Republican shortfalls in electoral success revolve around a lack of support from Hispanic voters, Palin explains the true nature of the problem the GOP is enduring, and she notes the implication of this approach that should be insulting to every American, but particularly Hispanics. She then delivered a stark warning to the GOP establishment in a fairly unambiguous way:
“Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democrat Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American. Now we turn to watch the House. If they bless this new “bi-partisan” hyper-partisan devastating plan for amnesty, we’ll know that both private political parties have finally turned their backs on us. It will then be time to show our parties’ hierarchies what we think of being members of either one of these out-of-touch, arrogant, and dysfunctional political machines.”
Indeed, this has been the lament of this website for a long, long time, as recently as this morning. Many of us have long ago walked away from the GOP, though we may support some candidates, and others have simply abandoned the sinking ship to its captains and the admiralty of the GOP that has run it aground. Governor Palin is correct: If we don’t turn out backs on this party in light of what it has done on this and so many other issues, it will be our own fault when the country collapses.
She concluded with a link to this piece on Breitbart, and it’s critical that one understands how thoroughly destructive the whole immigration bill will be to Americans, particularly American workers. Sarah Palin is one of the only voices with sufficient power to make this argument to the American people, so that they can know in advance what the Congress will have done should the House enact some phony immigration reform bill that will be replaced in conference with the Senate’s amnesty bill. Thankfully, Sarah Palin gets it, and she sees clearly the betrayal that is coming. It’s up to us to lend support to her voice and stand with her in opposition to this bill. It’s our country and its future that hangs in the balance.
If you’re a politically-engaged conservative, you couldn’t possibly have failed to notice the passage of the so-called “Gang-of-Eight” immigration bill in the Senate on Thursday afternoon. In the end, fourteen Republican sell-outs stepped up and voted for this abomination, with all fifty-four Democrats, meaning the bill will go on to the House. There were many more than fourteen Republican sell-outs who made this bill possible, and I will be reminding you of the entire list as we move into 2014 mid-term election mode, but for now, we must focus on what lies ahead. Readers will have heard reports that John Boehner is calling the Senate bill “dead on arrival,” or that “the House will have its own bill.” Let me assure you that John Boehner is a liar, and he is attempting to manipulate those who don’t understand the process or follow so closely as my readers. Speaker Boehner(R-OH) intends to give you the Senate bill, but to do it, he must shepherd some bill through the House, that could be almost anything pertaining to the broad scope of “immigration.” Some will not be informed of the angle on which Boehner and the other Amnesty-Traitors’ gambit relies, so that in order to stop him and his henchmen of the GOP establishment of the House, I must now make clear why we must urge our Congressmen to kill any bill. We must obstruct it altogether or get the Gang-of-Eight bill when it comes back from conference.
In order for a bill to go to the President to be signed into law, it must be passed in identical form in both houses of Congress. Ultimately, the same legislative language that passes in the House must also pass the Senate, or vice versa. Since both the House and the Senate are independent in theory, the two frequently pass bills on a similar matter, but the two bills may be significantly different. In order to rectify the bills, and make them identical, both chambers provide a certain number of people who will represent their body in a conference committee that works out the details of the law so that when they are finished, their final product is known widely as the “conference bill,” or the “conference report.” At that point, the bill in its completed, rectified, unified form goes back to the both bodies, and they vote again. If the conference bill passes in both houses, off to the President’s desk it goes for a signature enacting it as law, or a veto turning it aside.
The reason I am bothering with the Civics 101 recital of process is because I know that without understanding this, some Americans, many in fact, will fall for Speaker John Boehner’s ruse. You see, Speaker Boehner can (and I can promise you he will try) to pass the most conservative-seeming bill he thinks he can get through the House. It will doubtless be full of provisions that will seem strict, possibly “draconian,” compared to the Senate bill, and this will be done for a reason: Speaker Boehner needs some bill to pass the House, and its particulars don’t matter in the least to him. What Boehner and his henchmen Harry Reid and Barack Obama already know is that no matter how thoroughly conservative the House bill may be, it will be stripped from the final language of the conference report.
It is at this point that some people become frustrated with the process, because, they reason, it still has to return to the House for yet another vote for final passage after the conference produces the final form of the bill. Surely, the Republicans who sent the bill to conference would not vote for a watered-down version of their bill? True, most Republicans will not vote for such a watered-down bill, but John Boehner doesn’t need all the Republicans. He needs only a few hands-full, along with the whole body of the Democrat caucus. That’s right: Speaker Boehner doesn’t care what the form of the initial House bill will be, because it will be discarded in any event. In the end, what comes back from conference will be almost entirely the language of the Senate bill, and the House will be forced to vote on it, but even if four in five Republicans vote against its watered-down language, the one-in-five combined with all of the Democrats will be sufficient to pass the bill. In other words, a Republican Speaker of the House will rely upon the Democrats to pass the bill, along with a few establishment Republican stooges.
Then you will be faced with a new law that Senator Richard Shelby(R-AL) termed “the mother-of-all-amnesties.” The Democrats will march their members up to vote, even if they’re from relatively more conservative districts, and Boehner and the leadership will walk as many off the plank as needed to give them a margin of ten to fifteen. If it’s close, members on both sides of the aisle will be threatened and extorted and it will be made clear to them that they will lose all committee assignments and maybe staff or office selection if they manage to be re-elected when the Speaker throws them under the bus in 2014. Yes, and it could get more ugly even than this, but what you mustn’t forget is that the way to preclude this entire fiasco is still to convince your members of the House to vote against any immigration bill in any form, no matter how conservative it may seem. Whatever they promise, it won’t be the final form of the bill, but in order to foist on us what will be substantially the Senate version of the bill, they must pass something. Anything. Four lines that say: Close the border! It really doesn’t matter. Any bill passed by the House will be a vehicle by which to put forward the President’s bill, which is the Senate bill.
Unspoken and invisible through most of this debate has been President Obama. This is because he’s a political liability given his spate of scandals and his recent failure on gun control, such that if the bill becomes about him, it will fail. They have kept him in the shadows. This is why he has gone away to Africa. They want him far away from Washington DC when all of this goes down, and you can be sure that when the time comes to pass a bill in the House, he’ll either be talking about other issues or be out of town on another golf outing. Upon his return, the bill will have been passed, he’ll hold a Rose Garden signing ceremony, and accompany it with a signing statement proclaiming the border secure, so that there’s no reason to delay amnesty, even if one believes such provisions might materialize somehow in the final bill.
This is the dirty, fetid political sewer into which John Boehner and the other establishment Republicans have taken you. This is the manner by which they intend to sell you out for once and for all. They don’t care if you won’t vote for them in coming elections. They’re either in safe seats, or they’ll jump ship and become Democrats in order to win re-election with the votes of all of those they will now make eligible. Understanding the game that is afoot, it’s important to understand that the only way, the absolutely, positively only way to ensure that the Senate bill never sees the light of day as law is to make sure that John Boehner and his co-conspirators in the House cannot pass any bill of any sort on the subject of immigration.
This will be difficult, because Soros-funded, phony “conservative” groups are running radio ads that make it all sound as though the bill will be wonderful and conservative. It’s all a lie, but these ads air during your favorite conservative radio talk-shows, and they’re formatted and scripted to mislead you. The hosts don’t have much say-so about it, because they don’t own the networks or the radio stations, and they can’t necessarily affect the advertising that airs during their shows, and in some cases may not even be aware of some of it. In any event, their contracts likely prevent them from talking badly about any advertiser, so that even if they do know, they may be forbidden from saying the first thing against it.
That makes our problem even more difficult, because many people who would be inclined to call their Representatives to oppose the passage of any bill if only they knew the full details are going to be hoodwinked by all of this. At best, some will be confused, and they will be noncommittal, so that they will freeze in place and do nothing while Boehner and his cohorts put an end to the American republic. I am detailing all of this for you, my readers, because I know you share these articles, because if we are to penetrate the wall of deceit that has been erected around this bill, we must inform our fellow Americans, and we must make it plain to them, and we must arm them with the full knowledge of the game. Readers here know the game all too well, from sell-outs on the debt ceiling, or virtually anything else to pass out of the House since John Boehner became Speaker. We must stop the House bill dead in its tracks, no matter how attractive it may seem, because it will be used to push a horrible bill through in its place without a single vote from anybody who might be considered even approximately “conservative.”
It’s a tall order, but Americans are tall in spirit, and the patriots that hold this country together even against this current onslaught are giants, and it is because I know this that I believe we can kill this bill, but we must educate, and inform, and agitate like we have never done before. The left and the Republican establishment will try to get us off message, and try to derail us, but this legislation is the greatest threat to the future of the Republic in our lifetimes, and it’s high time we take the measure of this beast and knock it down. I know we can, but will we? That is the question I place before you, in the hope that you will answer as Americans always must.
Writing a Breitbart-exclusive op-ed, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sounded-off on Sunday evening over the ridiculous “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill pending in the US Senate, and in so doing, she stepped out to join other rare leaders on the conservative side of the debate. Just a few big-name conservatives have been vocal in their opposition to this bill, but this piece by Governor Palin seems to lay down a marker for others in the GOP to consider. The conservatives who have been doggedly fighting against this immigration bill for all its mortal failings have been heartened to see the freshman Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, stepping up to fight against a terribly abusive and nonsensical bill. With this most direct entry into the fray, Gov. Palin has made clear her continuing ability to lead from the outside, and it is most invigorating to grass roots conservatives that she has chosen this dark moment to speak up and do battle with the DC-Beltway, permanent political class that is trying to foist this bill upon the American people.
As is her habit, she wasted no time with pleasantries and minced no words:
“Just like they did with Obamacare, some in Congress intend to “Pelosi” the amnesty bill. They’ll pass it in order to find out what’s in it. And just like the unpopular, unaffordable Obamacare disaster, this pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interests-ridden, 24-lb disaster of a bill is not supported by informed Americans.”
This opening salvo sets the tone for the entire piece, because while like so many of us, Gov. Palin believes in legal immigration because she understands that we are a nation built by immigrants who faced tremendous challenges to conquer a continent, she also reveres the rule of law and understands quite well what happens when government becomes an agent of anarchy. In that vein, she wrote:
“I am an ardent supporter of legal immigration. I’m proud that our country is so desirable that it has been a melting pot making a diverse people united as the most exceptional nation on earth for over two centuries. But I join every American with an ounce of common sense insisting that any discussion about immigration must center on a secure border. The amnesty bill before the Senate is completely toothless on border security. “
Lamenting the many holes in the legislation now pending, including the amendments offered thus far, she took the time to single-out one of the bill’s key proponents, Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL). Earlier Sunday, she posted on Facebook and via Twitter an article revealing Rubio’s hypocrisy on the subject, and it is here that one gets a sense that the “Mama Grizzly” is just getting warmed-up:
“It’s beyond disingenuous for anyone to claim that a vote for this bill is a vote for security. Look no further than the fact that Senator Rubio and amnesty supporters nixed Senator Thune’s amendment that required the feds to finally build part of a needed security fence before moving forward on the status of illegal immigrants who’ve already broken the law to be here. And if shooting down the border fence wasn’t proof enough, they blew another chance by killing Senator Paul’s “Trust But Verify” amendment which required the completion of a fence in five years and required Congress to vote on whether the border is actually secure before furthering any immigration measures. And then they blew it yet again, nixing Senator Cornyn’s “Results” amendment, which also required border enforcement standards. Now the Senate’s pro-amnesty crowd is offering a fig leaf to security via the Corker-Hoeven Amendment, but this is really nothing more than empty promises. It’s amnesty right now and border security… eh, well, someday.”
This is more than fair in the sense of a well-deserved rebuke, and it also illustrates some of the games being played by the DC crowd. There really wasn’t any reason for Republicans to vote for cloture, permitting this bill to come to the floor for debate in the first place, but now that we’re stuck with this process, we ought to know who is doing what. She takes careful measure of the bill, stating simply:
“There are plenty of other commonsense solutions, but this bill isn’t about fixing problems; it’s about amnesty at all costs.”
In this allegation, there can be no doubt. So intent are these Senators to pass amnesty “at all costs” that they are willing to wheel and deal, but you should know as I have reported and she has identified again, part of this bill is nothing but a load of pork to be fed to the permanent political class who will trade their votes for goodies, including the bipartisan cabal of Senators from her own state:
“Just like they did for Obamacare, the permanent political class is sugaring this bill with one goody after another to entice certain senators to vote for it. Look no further than page 983 of the bill, which contains a special visa exemption for foreign seafood workers in the 49th state despite huge unemployment numbers in the American workforce. This is obviously a hidden favor designed to buy the votes of Alaska Senators Murkowski and Begich.”
One thing among many to be admired about Sarah Palin is her insistence on pointing out the con-artists in her own party. Few politicians will do such a thing, but she’s been doing so since she was the mayor of Wasilla, AK. It’s heartening to see her continue this fight, even as one realizes with sadness the fact that when it comes to corruption, there’s no end in sight, but Gov. Palin offers us many reasons for hope, and she implores the grass-roots to rise up against this horrible bill:
“It’s time for concerned Americans to flood our legislators’ phone lines with the input they need to hear from We the People. Join the mama grizzlies who are rearing up tirelessly to swat away false claims that amnesty is a good thing. Michelle Malkin rightly said the issue is not secure the border first, it’s “secure the border. Period.””
Amen. In the end, she reminds politicians of that which we must not forget, win, lose or draw on this particular issue:
“And 2014 is just around the corner.”
So it is, and we’ll be there too. You betcha!