Finally!

tedcruzforprez

Senator Ted Cruz delivers remarks before announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination to run for US President March 23, 2015, at Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia.(PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

Finally there’s an announced candidate I can vote for. Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for President in the 2016 election at the Liberty University to a rousing ovation. He immediately went to the top of the polls

Wow!

Of course he’s at the top of the polls. He’s the only one who has officially announced his candidacy by-passing the ‘exploratory’ phase completely.

His speech is already on YouTube. In his announcement, he vowed to end Obamacare if a repeal appeared on his desk and to end the IRS.

But the trolls are already out. Obama has already stolen a step on Cruz by buying the TedCruz.com domain name. It a liberal front supporting Obama and illegal immigration. It’s a tossup if the new domain owners are Obama or La Raza or one of the other uberliberal front groups. It really makes no difference as long as they prevent Ted Cruz or his supporters from using it.

The trolls seized the TedCruz.com domain but the real Ted is using TedCruz.org. On his website, Ted Cruz lists his policy positions and his voting record unlike liberals and RINOs who fear to make public their positions and voting records.

Pedro Gonzales, who is the editor of a website called NewsMachete.com, wrote a column about Cruz in the American Thinker.

Ted Cruz’s policy positions

By Pedro Gonzales, March 23, 2015

Now that Ted Cruz has decided to run for president, he is the first one with a website that actually states his policy positions.  Other would-be candidates, like Scott Walker and Rand Paul, have none, since they are not yet declared candidates.  (They do have websites for their current office, but none specifically addressing policy positions of what they would do as president.)

There’s a lot to chew over at TedCruz.org, but here’s a sampling of Cruz’s positions.

Authored the Obamacare Repeal Act as his first piece [of] legislation.

Led the fight to defund Obamacare — the largest regulatory challenge facing our nation which has resulted in killing jobs, cutting workers’ hours, and causing millions of Americans to lose their doctors or health care.

I remember when Cruz had his “mini-filibuster” on this subject.  He spoke for 21 hours straight.  He and Mike Lee were basically alone; no other senators came to offer support for any substantive period of time.  Rand Paul made a cameo appearance for about five minutes.

Authored legislation to end taxpayer dollars subsidizing corporate fat cats, including the Ex-Im Bank.

Opposed the Renewable Fuel Standard ethanol subsidy.

All the other candidates support ethanol, except for Rick Perry.

Led the fight against regulating the Internet as a public utility because it threatens the Internet as a haven for entrepreneurial freedom and unlimited opportunity.

Rand Paul, to his credit, has been outspoken on this as well.

Set an early, high standard for meaningful Republican opposition to increasing the debt ceiling.

Demanded a 60-vote threshold vote on a clean debt-ceiling increase in February 2013, when Republican leadership wanted to allow the Democrats to raise the limit with a simple majority vote.

Led the charge on behalf of 13 states to successfully defend, before the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal law that bans one form of late-term abortion, the Partial Birth Abortion Act.

Joined 18 states in successfully defending the New Hampshire parental-notification law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Successfully defended in federal court Texas’s Rider 8, which prohibits state funds for groups that provide abortions.

Fought for the right of states to define marriage, without intrusion by unelected federal judges, by drafting the State Marriage Defense Act.

Opposed the Obama Administration’s dangerous deal with Iran that would allow Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

Successfully pressured the Obama Administration to lift its unprecedented FAA ban on flights to Israel after exposing the move as, in essence, an economic boycott of our strongest ally in the Middle East. The ban was lifted within 36 hours of the Senator’s actions

Championed the Expatriate Terrorist Act to prevent Americans who join ISIS from returning to the United States to commit acts of terror at home.

Joined Texas and 25 other states in a lawsuit to stop President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.

Authored legislation to triple the size of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Played a crucial role in preventing federal legislation to restrict the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

Led 31 states in District of Columbia v. Heller where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ban on firearms in a 5-4 landmark decision.

This is just a small sampling of the material on TedCruz.org; there’s a lot on his positions and record there.  People think of him as being only a senator in his first term, but they forget that he was solicitor general of Texas and litigated a lot of cases to preserve our freedoms.

I like a lot of what I read here, and I suspect that you do, too.  I look forward to the other candidates declaring and putting up websites showing their policy positions so we can compare and contrast.  But for now I’m impressed not just by the amount of information Cruz has put up, but by the degree of detail.

Now we conservatives have a candidate who is one of us. Who has the same dreams and visions that we do, one who wants to restore constitutional government to Washington.

And finally, he’s a flat tax advocate rather than that god awful consumption/national sales tax.

Hearts and Minds

…is an old phrase made famous in the ’60s and ’70s. The concept was valid. However, the implementation left a lot to be desired. The phrase came to me today as I read an article in the American Thinker. Most of the nation is watching the candidates for federal office. But there are hundreds of other candidates running for local, county and state offices as well and the prognosis for THEM is more telling on the sensibilities of the country. The outlook for the dems is potentially worse than anyone thought.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2014-10-16%20Senate%20Map%20(600).png

Center for Politics Projected Map of the 2014 general election

One clarification. When the article below speaks of chambers, it counts the state Houses and state Senates separately. One state, Nebraska, has a single-chamber legislature. Nebraska is also, by state law, non-partisan. That leaves 98 partisan legislative chambers.

State Legislatures and 2014

By Bruce Walker, October 19, 2014

Most of the midterm attention seems to be on control of the United States Senate, with some attention on key gubernatorial races like Florida and Wisconsin, and with a smidgen of notion to the size of the Republican House majority after 2014.  Most pundits see Republicans padding that current majority by some seats.

There is another level to the 2014 midterm that passes almost completely under the political radar:  control of state legislatures.  Twenty years ago, in the 1994 midterms, Republicans made dramatic gains in state legislatures – a vital part of our constitutional system, which had been utterly dominated by Democrats for a century.

How weak had Republicans been in state legislatures?

Consider these data.  After the 1980 Reagan landslide, Democrats held 74 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers.  After the 1984 Reagan landslide, in which Democrats carried only one state, Democrats held 67 out of the 98 chambers.  After George H. Bush beat Dukakis in 1988, Democrats held 72 out of 98 chambers.  Even when Republicans were winning the White House easily, Democrats held overwhelming strength in state legislatures.

This really changed when Newt Gingrich nationalized the midterm election with his Contract With America, which swept Republicans into secondary statewide elective offices, like lieutenant governor and state attorney general, as well as state legislative seats.  After the 1994 midterms, Republicans held 46 of the 98 state legislative chambers; they held the same number after Clinton was re-elected in 1996.  This strength actually grew after the 1998 midterms, when Republicans were losing House seats, and grew again after the 2000 presidential election. 

That was a tipping point.  Democrats had long, and rather boastfully, gerrymandered congressional districts so that the number of Democrats in the House was significantly larger than the number of votes Democrat candidates in House races received.  In the reapportionment and redistricting after the 2000 census, Republicans, for the first time in a century, could stop Democrat gerrymandering and, in fact, gerrymander themselves.

Just as importantly, Republicans could now stop Democrat gerrymandering of state legislative districts and could, in fact, draw the district lines in state legislatures to maximize the number of seats Republicans would win.  This strategy proved so resilient that even after the 2008 election – after two straight elections of big Democrat gains – Democrats held only 62 of the state legislative chambers, five fewer than they held after the 1984 Reagan landslide.

Hidden in the congressional gains of the 2010 Republican landslide, the GOP controlled 59 state legislative chambers, far more than at any time in modern history, and as a direct consequence of that, Republican governors like Scott Walker were able to push through laws to limit public employee unions, reduce voter fraud, and protect the sanctity of life, among other conservative reforms.  

Because 2010, like 2000, was the election to choose state legislatures who would draw congressional and state legislative districts for the next decade, this Republican midterm gain was particularly important.  So even when Obama was re-elected in 2012, the congressional seats that had been drawn after the census largely by Republican state legislators elected a comfortable (albeit smaller) House Republican majority, and the state legislative districts drawn largely by Republicans gave the GOP 56 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers – a slight drop, but far more than Republicans had ever held in the heyday of Reagan or Eisenhower, both of whom won two landslide presidential elections.

After the 2014 midterm, which looks increasingly like a Republican wave election that will bring victory to Republicans in state elections as well as Senate and House elections, that 56 state legislative chambers could grow – perhaps a lot.  The Democrat majority makes for just one vote in the Colorado Senate, Iowa Senate, Nevada Senate, and Washington Senate.  In other chambers, the Democrat majority could easily be swept away by a modest Republican tide: Colorado House, Maine Senate, Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Nevada House, New Mexico Senate, New Mexico House, New York Senate, Oregon House, Oregon Senate, Washington House, and West Virginia House. 

Depending upon the outcome of gubernatorial races, this could put Republicans in a position to actually control state government in sates like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa.  These legislatures could pass and Republican governors sign new laws that rein in the political levies of public employee unions or create new and more effective ways to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

No one is going to be talking about state legislative races on the Tuesday evening of this midterm, but the impact on politics and policies could be huge.

Liberal tyranny is spreading everywhere from Houston’s Mayor Annise Parker attempting to suppress religious speech to the city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, ordering two pastors to officiate same-sex marriages or face fines and/or imprisonment. These two examples of suppression of free religious speech is no different from Kansas City’s Mayor Sly James passing an ordinance banning the open carry of a weapon, “to send a message,” to open carry advocates. The purpose of the ordinance was, again, the suppression of free speech and expression.

In the end, all these acts by government are suppression of ‘unalienable’ and constitutional rights by leftist controlled governments. That is why gaining control of local and state governments is so important. Political rot starts at the top. Political recovery begins at the bottom.

Infringement

in·fringe·ment
inˈfrinjmənt/
noun
noun: infringement; plural noun: infringements

1. the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
“copyright infringement”
2. the action of limiting or undermining something.
“the infringement of the right to privacy”

If an act by a governing body, say a county, criminalizes an act that would in other circumstances be recognized as a by-product of a constitutional right, would that body be said to be infringing upon a constitutional right?

The county is Jackson. What they have done is to criminalize self protection if a firearm is used. Earlier this week, I wrote about a message I received from Kevin Jamison, President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. It’s worth repeating.

Jackson County has an ordinance which prohibits shooting in the “urban tier” of the country. There is a map of this urban tier but it takes some effort to get. It does not exempt self-defense. The ordinance was slipped through last December without public notice. It does allow for ranges but does not define them and no county permit for ranges exists. This complicates some of the CCW instructors who have a home range. There was a hearing on a repeal sponsored by County Legislator Greg Grounds. The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement. There were a great number of people there today. That always gets a politician’s attention.

The Jackson County Sheriff’s office says that they did not request this ordinance.

Let’s create a scenario. You are in a mall parking lot and you have your arms full of packages. You are parked nose-in against a concrete wall and have cars parked on both sides of you. A man walks up with a weapon and demands your money, car keys and says he’ll kill you if you don’t comply.

You cannot run. There is no where to go. Your exit is blocked by the mugger. From more of his statements, you believe he’ll kill you regardless of your compliance. You also have a CCW permit and have a pistol available. You are in fear of your life. What do you do? Comply and possibly die, or fight back? Many of us, in similar situations, would fight back using what we have available—throw the packages at your attacker, draw your weapon and fire.

You have just violated Jackson County’s new ordinance—firing a pistol, any firearm, withing the boundaries of Jackson County. It makes no difference that you were fully justified in defending yourself under the law. It makes no difference you were legally armed. It makes no difference, you have fired within the county and the Powers-That-Be are determined to get their pound-of-flesh because you exercised your right of self-defense.

It is an atrocity.

For those of you residing within Jackson County, remember the clandestine actions of your county government when you return to the polls. Vote the tyrants out!

***

Harry Reid said he was determined to go around the First Amendment after SCOTUS laid down the law on Obama’s attempt to violate Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment rights. Like other democrats, Reid believe the Constitution is an impediment in the path of their statist agenda. Too bad some of his own didn’t obey Reid’s marching orders.

Victory: Pro-Life Senators Vote Down New Abortion-Pill Mandate

The American people’s voices were heard.  Over 75,000 Americans signed the ACLJ’s petition to defeat the new abortion-pill mandate and defend religious liberty in just a little over 48 hours.

Yet the left is not giving up on its dream of making every American pay for abortion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lamented that this pro-abortion bill only gained 56 of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture (end debate), and promised another vote “before the year is out” (read: before the November elections).  In other words, Sen. Reid is signaling to his pro-abortion allies that he will make the abortion-pill mandate a central issue of the fall elections.

Harry Reid lost this time but he won’t give up on his attempts to destroy the Constitution. The left never gives up. They’ll chip away at the Constitution, one right at a time.

Nanny State

I was listening to radio news this morning while in the shower. A local hospital, Children’s Mercy, has just declared themselves a “no hitting” zone. According to their PR flack, they equate spanking with child abuse. “If it leaves a mark, it’s abuse,” the flack said.

They seem to overlook that a proper spanking is not a beating. The flat of a hand against the posterior isn’t a beating. But, it’s their hospital and they can make the rules. What I do object to is their alternative to bad behavior by children. Instead of the parent correcting that behavior, the flack said, “distract the child. Give them some bubbles or a coloring book.”

Excuse me, that is not redirecting bad behavior, it is rewarding bad behavior. These rules prevent parents from doing what parents should be doing—correcting and preventing bad behavior while enforcing good behavior. Children’s Mercy won’t allow parent to do that. The hospital has preempted the parent’s authority. They will sic Social Services on the parent they deem ‘abusive.’

Hospitals, to just about everyone not an employee, aren’t nice places. Yes, on occasion we need to go there for multiple purposes, but no one really likes going there. Multiply that by a factor of 10 for children. To them it’s a scary place where people do strange things to you and many of those things HURT!

It’s not surprising that kids, and parents, too, often misbehave. The kids are scared, so are the parents, if they would admit it, and no one is on their best behavior. What the parents learn is that they cannot correct their children. What the children learn is that if they misbehave, they will get attention and be rewarded with something, not-scary, to do. What the hospital wants is peace and quiet and they believe they know best how to achieve that goal.

Like I said, it’s their hospital, they can make the rules. In this case, I think their alternatives are misdirected, treating the symptom, not the cause. Rewarding bad behavior creates long term issues in the family. Children’s Mercy does not concern themselves with that. It’s not within the walls of their hospital.

What Children’s Mercy is doing is exercising Nanny-state rules. A general rule that is applied universally. It is not always the best…even when it fits that rare occurance.

I’m not approving bad parental behavior nor child beating. But too often, that is the accusation when all that is being done is a swat of the hand against a child’s butt. Not allowing that is Nanny-state rules.

***

Want to know a person’s character? Watch what they do.

Barack Obama’s aunt died earlier this month in a welfare nursing home of cancer. She came to this country to help Michelle with her new-born children. Instead of attending her funeral, Obama played golf.

That is the character of Barack Obama, a thoroughly despicable person.

***

It hasn’t gotten much fanfare in the MSM, but liberals are in the process of removing another portion of the Constitution—the Electoral College.

EDITORIAL: Blue states try raiding Electoral College

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact tries end run around the Constitution

The Return of the Friday Follies

This has been an interesting week—interesting as in the old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” Obamacare continues to disintegrate. The GOP Establishment howls, “See! See!”, as if it vindicates their ineptness and lack of leadership opposing it and the dems in general.

More dem pols are attempting to distance themselves from Obama and Obamacare, Mark Pryor of Arkansas is an example. The twenty and thirty-somethings, those whom the libs depended upon to fund Obamacare, are rebelling. That subject, rebellion, revolution, was spoken aloud this week by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute before a congressional judiciary committee and was supported, obliquely, by law professor Jonathan Turley, an Obama supporter.

Frankly, I, like any sane citizen, would rather not live in interesting times. Unfortunately, we, collectively the citizens of this nation, have allowed the situation to occur. And, the longer the condition is allowed to continue, the worse it will be and the more difficult it will be to correct.

If it can. That was the underlying concern espoused by Michael Cannon and Jonathan Turley.

But, I’ve already written about those subjects. Today is Friday, December 6, 2013. Tomorrow is Pearl Harbor Day. I wonder if it will be remembered by the intelligentsia in Washington…or used as another campaign event by the democrats and Obama celebrating our slide into totalitarianism and a police state, of a one-party rule like that of the old Soviet Union.

***

The GOP Establishment as acquired an ally in their war against the Tea Party and their party’s core conservatives—the US Chamber of Commerce. That alliance created a reaction. The Club for Growth has joined the fray on the side of conservatives.

New battlefront emerges in war between Republicans, tea party

By Seth McLaughlin – The Washington Times, Thursday, December 5, 2013

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s new push to get involved in Republican primaries by defending incumbents against tea party challengers could actually make it easier to unseat them, according to the head of the influential Club for Growth.

Chris Chocola, the club’s president, said the battle between the chamber, which he said advocates big business, and the rank-and-file free-market conservatives whom his group represents is well underway as Republicans try to field their candidates for the 2014 congressional elections.

The latest fight is shaping up in Idaho, where the chamber announced this week that it will run ads defending incumbent Rep. Michael K. Simpson, a Republican, against a challenge by lawyer Bryan Smith. The club has endorsed Mr. Smith.

“The chamber is pro-business and we are pro-free market, and that is the difference,” Mr. Chocola told The Washington Times. “The opposing views are not new, but there seems to be some heightened interest from the establishment types to get involved in a race like Idaho. If that heightened interest continues there might be more chances that we end up on opposite sides.”

The column continues, here, at the website.

Not only has the anti-conservative campaign of the GOP establishment drawn out national organizations such as the Club for Growth, it has also started a wave of grassroots activism and reactivation of local Tea Party groups rallying to fight that establishment from both parties.

***

Speaking the truth. It is a dangerous occurance, regardless of the validity of the statement. Here in the U. S., it can get you fired. You’d think the consequences would be worse is socialist Europe and the UK. If you thought that, you’d be wrong.

PRUDEN: British press horrified as London’s new mayor dares to proclaim the truth

By Wesley Pruden – The Washington Times, Thursday, December 5, 2013

LONDON — Free speech is good, but sometimes dangerous in practice. Saying what you think can get you sacked in America even if it’s something that most people think. Practicing free speech here in the old country is risky, too, but saying the wrong thing appears to be a misdemeanor, not yet a felony.

Boris Johnson, the irrepressible mayor of London, said some provocative things the other day to a private think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, and political London — mostly the scribblers, anyway — has been in a tizzy since.

The mayor playfully invoked Gordon Gecko, who exists only in a movie, and his economic philosophy that “greed is good” to make the point that intelligence, ambition, inspiration and above all perspiration is the irresistible driver of prosperity for everyone. He observed that some people are smarter than others, and that the 2 percent pulls the 98 percent into the good life. To the consternation of conservatives in the government and the left-wing columnists and commentators, the mayor is still upright and walking around.

The 98 percent should be grateful to the 2 percent and not spend a lot of time cultivating resentment. “Some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy,” he said, “and keeping up with the Joneses is, like greed, a valuable spur to the economy.” This reflects an unremarkable understanding of what was once called human nature before the liberals — “progressives,” they call themselves now — decided that the state can install a better nature than God did.

Mr. Johnson then went even further. He said nice things about Margaret Thatcher, who has never been forgiven in certain of these precincts for pulling Britain out of the deep coma imposed by a welfare state that had reduced an empire to “a little England.”

The mayor sometimes talks less like a mayor than a newspaper columnist, which he is as well, for The Daily Telegraph. The squeals from the left and the harrumphs from the right after his Maggie Thatcher remarks may be less about the interpretations of his message than about the folly of electing a newspaper columnist to high office. Instead of bashing the rich, he wrote the other day, “we should be offering them humble and hearty thanks. It is through their restless, concupiscent energy and sheer wealth-creating dynamism that we pay for an ever-growing proportion of public services.”

You can read more here.

***

The topic, State Nullification, is a continuing subject in many conservative circles. It appeared in a Washington Times column this week in a discussion of the overbearance and possible Constitutional violations by the government and the NSA. Nullification, contrary to popular thought, is not supported in the Constitution. It was, however, discussed in the Federalist Papers and in those papers, advocated as a possible solution to the excess of the federal government.

The Constitution and state-level resistance to NSA spying

Wednesday, December 4, 2013 – A View from the Tenth by Michael Boldin

LOS ANGELES, December 4, 2013 –  In Federalist #46, James Madison advised state-level actions in response to unconstitutional or unpopular federal acts. He wrote that a successful strategy includes a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”

As reported by US News, and linked at the top of the Drudge Report yesterday, a coalition of organizations is working to put that advice into practice in response to mass NSA surveillance programs.

The activists would like to turn off the water to the NSA’s $1.5 billion Utah Data Center in Bluffdale, Utah, and at other facilities around the country.

 Dusting off the concept of “nullification,” which historically referred to state attempts to block federal law, the coalition plans to push state laws to prohibit local authorities from cooperating with the NSA.

Draft state-level legislation called the Fourth Amendment Protection Act would – in theory – forbid local governments from providing services to federal agencies that collect electronic data from Americans without a personalized warrant.

This morning, at the TIME Swampland blog, Nate Rawlings picked up on the story as well, but opined that the “effort is sure to be stymied by federal authorities.”

Such an opinion assumes that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to stop states from opting out of federal acts and programs, or has a history of doing so.

Both assumptions are incorrect.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly supported the ability of states to opt out of federal acts and programs. The legal principle is known as the “anti-commandeering doctrine,” and says that the federal government cannot force, or “commandeer,” states to enact, administer or enforce federal regulations.

The relevant court cases are:

* 1842 Prigg: The court held that states were not required to enforce federal slavery laws.

* 1992 New York: The court held that Congress could not require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Sebelius: The court held that states could not be required to expand Medicaid even under the threat of losing federal funding.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a state to help the federal government do anything.

The 4th Amendment Protection Act is a state-level bill which seeks to put the anti-commandeering doctrine into practice. The Act would thwart NSA surveillance by banning a state from participating in any program that helps or utilizes NSA surveillance.  This would include providing natural resources, information sharing, and more.

The question, then, is this: Do enough states have the will to follow the advice of the “Father of the Constitution?”

Yes, that is an interesting question.

***

And for a parting shot, let this item from FOX News be a reminder what we, the conservatives, are opposing.

OBAMA SAYS ONE-PARTY CONTROL NEEDED
President Obama told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that Republicans are to blame for the failings of ObamaCare and other national problems. Obama said making concessions on his signature entitlement program was “out of the question.” The way forward, the president said, was to end divided government. “In our history, usually when we’ve made big progress on issues, it actually has been when one party controlled the government for a period of time,” he said. “The big strides we made in the New Deal, the big strides we made with the Great Society – those were times when you had a big majority.” — Chris Stirewalt, Digital Politics Editor, Fox News.

The Liberty Amendments

Levins_The_Liberty_Amendments

Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments, is getting a lot of press since its release earlier this week. It rose to #1 on the Amazon best seller list on its first day.

According to Levin, the book is how to restore the Constitution using means already available within the Constitution. Brent Bozell and Cal Thomas have written articles on the book as shown below.

A constitutional cure for what ails us

BY: Cal Thomas August 15, 2013 | 5:00 am

When I studied the U.S. Constitution in school, I learned that for a bill to become law, it first had to be introduced in either the House or the Senate. Today, a cynic might say for a bill to become law, a member of Congress must first be introduced to a lobbyist.

Much of government’s dysfunction, cost and overreach can be traced to the abandonment of the constitutional boundaries the Founders put in place for the purpose of controlling the lust for power.

In his new book, “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic,” Mark R. Levin asserts the U.S. government isn’t performing up to standards established by the Founders because, like a flooding river, politicians have breached their constitutional limits.

Levin, who graduated with honors and a law degree from Temple University and who hosts a popular syndicated radio talk show, believes “the nation has entered an age of post-constitutional tyranny” resulting in this attitude by our leaders: “The public is not to be informed but indoctrinated, manipulated and misled.”

Before this is dismissed as the ranting of a far-right extremist, consider the case Levin builds: The executive branch has assumed for itself “broad lawmaking power,” creating departments and agencies that contravene the doctrine known as separation of powers; Congress creates monstrosities like Obamacare that have no constitutional origin, spending the country into record debt and making America dependent on foreign governments, especially China; the judiciary consists of men and women who are “no more virtuous than the rest of us and in some cases less so, as they suffer from the usual human imperfections and frailties.”

And yet they make decisions in the name of the Constitution that cannot be defended according to the words of the Founders, who believed the judiciary should be the least powerful and consequential branch of government.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary branch would be the weakest of the three because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse. … It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”

Who can credibly disagree with Levin when he writes: “What was to be a relatively innocuous federal government, operating from a defined enumeration of specific grants of power, has become an ever-present and unaccountable force. It is the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider and pension guarantor.”

To return America to its constitutional boundaries, Levin proposes a series of “liberty amendments” to the Constitution, beginning with one limiting the terms of congressmen so they might avoid the bipartisan virus that infects even some who believe in limited government, mutating them into power-hungry influence seekers with little regard for the public good.

Another amendment would establish term limits for Supreme Court justices. “The point is,” argues Levin, “that the Framers clearly intended to create intrinsic limitations on the ability of any one branch or level of government to have unanswered authority over the other.”

Another amendment would establish spending limits for the government. Another would grant states the authority to check Congress.

Levin admits these amendments are unlikely to win congressional approval because in Washington power is not willingly relinquished. That’s why he proposes the states bypass Congress, as the Framers provided, and pass these amendments themselves.

As Levin notes, “Article V [of the Constitution] expressly grants state legislatures significant authority to rebalance the constitutional structure for the purpose of restoring our founding principles should the federal government shed its limitations, abandon its original purpose and grow too powerful, as many delegates in Philadelphia and the state conventions had worried it might.”

Americans who care about the health and future of their country have the power through the states to force the federal government to abide by its founding document. Mark Levin’s book is a serious work that can serve as an action plan for curing what ails us.

What’s needed is less focus on Washington and more on state capitals where legislators are more likely to be responsive to the demands of “we the people.”

One of the core concepts of Levin’s proposals is the restoration of federalism between the states and Washington instead of the centralist government we now have. Levin calls this ‘statism.’ Whether we call it a centralist government or statism, the result is the same—more power in Washington and less to the states and individuals.

The other review appeared on Investor’s Business Daily by Brent Bozell.

Mark Levin’s New Book Could Help Americans Regain Their Liberty

By Posted 08/14/2013 06:18 PM ET

Only those happily trampling on the last vestiges of freedom will deny that our federal government as a constitutional republic has ceased to function.

The president can no longer control (nor does this one want to control) the enormous and ever-expanding bureaucracy functioning as a government by fiat.

The legislative branch, so corrupted, so drunk by the allure of power, so disdainful of its constituents, is unable to stop its bankrupting ways.

The judiciary is perhaps worst. The Supreme Court is openly rejecting the authority of the Constitution itself.

If the federal government refuses to adhere to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what can the citizenry do about it? The events of the past five years (more, actually) prove this.

It has become virtually impossible to stop the agenda of a radical chief executive who brazenly uses the federal government as his personal political machine. It is almost impossible to defeat an incumbent in Congress with all the advantages it has awarded itself. For all intents it’s impossible to replace a member of the Supreme Court.

The left is content with this terrible turn of events. By “transformation” they meant the transfer of power to the state.

Conservatives are loath to declare American exceptionalism dead, yet are powerless to stop the statist steamroller. With every cycle, the situation worsens. At some point the unthinkable — tyranny — is upon us. We are running out of time. Only radical surgery will save the patient now.

Enter Dr. Mark Levin with his new book, “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.” Levin is a Constitutional scholar — and he shines.

He argues passionately that the federal government can be brought under control only if new limitations are thrust upon it by its citizenry. He proposes a Constitutional convention, not one called by Congress but by two-thirds of state legislatures. It would require a three-fourths margin to pass any amendment. It is the lesser known of the two options provided by Article V of the Constitution.

What should a Constitutional convention tackle? Levin offers 11 amendments for consideration, with appropriate subdivisions, each carefully researched and designed to reduce the power of the state.

  • Term limits for Congress is the first liberty amendment Levin offers; it is my view also the most important. Only when there are limits (12 years) will Congress be populated by men and women driven only by the call to service, not the siren song of power.
  • The millions delivered by special interests for the re-election of incumbents who, in turn, reward said interests with billions in grants, contracts, tax shelters and the like — will cease.

Levin calls for other limitations on Congress.

  • He proposes an amendment to limit federal spending and another to limit taxation. The combination will restore fiscal sanity while devolving power from the state.
  • He offers an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment, returning to the Article 1 mandate that senators be chosen by their state legislators.
  • What about the Supreme Court? “(Should five individuals be making political and public policy decisions and imposing them on every corner of the nation . . . as they pursue even newer and more novel paths around the Constitution in exercising judicial review?”
  • Levin notes: Sometimes mistakes are made (Roberts, anyone?) and America shouldn’t be punished for the rest of that jurist’s life. He proposes 12-year term limits for them, as well.
  • What can be done to control, even reduce the size and scope of the bureaucracy? All federal departments and agencies must be re-authorized by Congress every three years or be terminated — that’s what.
  • There’s a liberty amendment to protect and promote free enterprise, now under assault.
  • One to protect private property given the ability of the federal government suddenly to steal it.
  • Amendments to increase the power of the states.
  • Finally, an amendment to protect the voting process.

Who would have thought such amendments would be needed? That’s the point. It’s the nature of the crisis.

Levin quotes Tocqueville reflections on the first Constitutional Convention: “(I)t is new in history of society to see a great people turn a calm and scrutinizing eye upon itself when apprised by the legislature that the wheels of its government are stopped.”

It is time for our legislatures once more to issue the clarion call.

Levin hopes “The Liberty Amendments” will launch a national discussion. It will. Levin is a consequential man, and this is a consequential book.

Some critics will dismiss the idea. But nothing else is working, and nothing else will do. We have reached the tipping point.

Levin, on his radio show (locally KCMO-710 at 5pm weekdays), jumped the gun on the book’s release. He began talking about some of the concepts late last week with some tantalizing hints.

If you have ever read Levin’s bio, you’ll quickly see he knows government—from the inside and well as the outside. His Landmark Legal Foundation is currently suing the EPA over violations of law and their own regulations.

Levin wants the states to apply pressure to the central government. He outlines means and methods for them to do so. I don’t have a copy yet, but I’m looking forward to reading this latest Levin book.

Random Shots for Wednesday

I’m surprised how many readers liked my post for Monday, August 12, 2013, titled, Planes. Many were pilots…or inactive pilots like me. There are no ‘former’ pilots, only those who are current and those who aren’t.

I was rushed for time Monday morning. I could have written it better. I wish I had, especially that sequence of landing a small plane. It’s difficult to describe for those who’ve never done it…the feel and feedback from the rudder pedals, slipping to compensate for a crosswind, the flare…those last few floating feet before touchdown that seems to last forever.

I thank all you pilots, active and inactive, who liked the post.

***

I  am a Mark Levin fan. I usually listen to the first hour or so of his dailyl broadcast on KCMO-710, 5PM. He has been hitting the ‘Pub establishment hard this last week…harder than usual.

Part of it is PR for his new book, The Liberty Amendments. His book outlines a plan to restore the Constitution to that originally envisioned by the Founders.

But the book isn’t what has Levin in the news. No, it’s his prognosis for the ‘Pub party and that prognosis is poor…very poor.

Mark Levin: ‘Entrenched’ Republican ‘losers’ may cost GOP the House in 2014

Jeff Poor, Media Reporter, 12:17 AM 08/14/2013

Conservative talker Mark Levin blasted Republican House leaders on his Tuesday radio show, warning that by attacking more conservative members of the GOP, Speaker John Boehner and prominent Reps. Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are throwing away the 2014 midterm elections.

Levin, author of “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic,” said the GOP establishment’s disparagement of conservative colleagues, could be a disaster in a midterm “turn out the base” election.

“This is my great fear,” Levin said. “My great fear is that guys like Boehner, and quite frankly Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor and his goofball [Kevin] McCarthy — they don’t get it at all. Midterm elections in particular are base elections, they are turnout elections. And they’re doing everything they can to turn us off, to turn us off. Where are they standing ground and keeping ground and fighting? Instead it’s, ‘No, no we’re not going to shut down the government.’ Even if that’s your ultimate view, why do you reveal that to the leftists and the media? It’s like playing poker and the idiot shows his cards — and that’s what he does. ‘Hey, look at this.’”

“And also, amnesty?” he continued. “Pathway to citizenship? This is their number one issue. No. And then we have Obamacare. The president of the United States, rubbing the Republican’s nose in it,acting like he’s king, and as I’ve been saying and now others, an imperial president. ‘No. we’ll follow this part of the law. No, I’m suspending this part of the law. No, I’m deferring this part of the law.’ What the hell is that? And what are the Republicans doing about it? Now the typical Republican response would be ‘well what do you want us to do about it?’”

The conservative talker encouraged Republicans in the House and Senate to use any means necessary to draw attention to President Barack Obama’s attempts to thwart the law and/or the Constitution, including obstruction tactics.

“Here’s what I want you to do,” Levin said. “You fools should have been, time and time again, every time he has violated the Constitution, you should have made an issue about it,” Levin said. “You should have punished him in some way — denied him some appointee, obstructed some piece of legislation. Draw attention to this lawlessness so the American people after a year, or two, or three of you consistently explaining it and hammering away at it would in fact be aware of what you’re trying to do and say! But instead, what do we get? What do we get? We get John McCain attacking Ted Cruz. What do we get? Chris Christie attacking Rand Paul. What do we get? Karl Rove attacking Mike Lee. The same dug-in entrenched losers who may well cost us the House of Representatives in the next election.”

Levin speculated as to what would happen if the Democrats regained control of the House and who the so-called Republican establishment may blame for it.

“And do you know what Obama will do again if he controls the whole damn thing?” Levin added.  “And he’s banking on it. That’s why he’s putting all these things off. He’s sucking people in to vote for him and then he’s going to drop the hammer. Then what do we do? ‘We don’t control any — one half of one third or anything else.’ And what are the Republicans going to do then? Blame the conservatives? Blame the tea party? What are they going to do then? ‘We can’t control anything. We don’t even have one half of one third — of course you don’t. Look what you’ve squandered, the opportunity. This president is pathetic. His policies are a disaster. We have sustained high unemployment, sustained housing problems. The economy is still on its back. He won’t secure the damn border. He’s hollowing out the military. He’s hollowing out NASA. What the hell? He’s handing you the issues to run on. And what do you do? You attack conservatives. Brilliant.”

If you’ve ever listened to Levin on the radio, or via his pod and internet ‘casts, you’ve heard this theme before. The Republican Party is dying, poisoned from within. It is a Truth and many in the party, in and out of Washington, refuse to listen.

***

A Colorado District Judge ruined that state’s liberal scheme to derail the recall elections of three democrat legislators. In his decision, the mail-in ballot scheme and no-show voting was rendered ineffective. How? The Judge ruled in accordance to the Colorado state constitution.

Judge rules to uphold the Colorado Constitution

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 – Red Pill, Blue Pill by Al Maurer

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., August 13, 2013—Monday evening Denver District Judge Robert McGahey ruled in favor of the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit to allow candidates up until 15 days prior to the September 10 recall election to qualify for the ballot. This ruling upholds the state constitution, which mandates it.

Under the recently-enacted House Bill 1303, state election law was changed to allow all mail-in ballot recall elections. To meet the deadlines imposed by such an election, candidates were given only until July 29 to collect 1000 signatures—10 days from when Gov. Hickenlooper belatedly set the election date.

Potential candidates now have until August 26 to gather enough signatures to get on the ballot, making it impossible for county clerks to then print and mail ballots to voters. The election, therefore, will now be an in-person one.

In choosing between the state constitution and the recent statute calling for mail ballots and early voting schedules, Judge McGahey said it would be an “absurd result” to ignore the constitution’s direct wording on recall candidates.

In addition, Judge McGahey ripped the legislature for “Writing an election law so clearly non-compliant with the state Constitution….With all due respect to the legislature, it did not consider or ignored the clear language of Article XXI – I find that both sad and, frankly, shocking.”

The major parties did not agree.

The dems protest because their vote fraud scheme was foiled. The ‘Pubs don’t like it either because it ruins their plan to be the only opposition to the dems. That ‘Pub view may have some merit if the votes to oppose the dems are diluted among several candidates.

There is a companion article here. I suppose it’d be too much to hope for that the ‘Pubs and Libertarians jointly submit a candidate against the dems. Yes, I suppose it would, and, that’s too bad, because now the opposing votes against the dems will be diluted among two or more candidates.

***

I’d like to make a followup to a post I made some months ago. That post was about the Cass County Lincoln Day dinner and guest speaker Tom Schweich, Missouri’s Auditor. In the last two paragraphs of that post, I wrote:

I applaud Schweich’s attempt for unity. He has a steep road to walk. I like Schweich. I voted for him in his last election and will probably vote for him in the next one. However, his attempts to heal the party will fail as long as the state’s party hierarchy maintains their paternalistic attitude and their continued efforts to control the central committee.

Unless there is significant change, they will fail. Ed Martin unseated David Cole as Chairman of the MO Central Committee. Martin ran for Attorney General as a Tea Partier. I’ve met him and I was impressed with him. He now has a formidable task, the reunification of the Missouri Republican party. I await him to begin that reconciliation—before it is too late.

Since April, when I wrote the post above, I’ve met a number of times with Ed Martin‘s Political Director Steve Michael. At one meeting, he was joined by Bob Evans, the Heritage Action Regional Coordinator for Missouri who was formerly a member of the St. Louis Tea Party.

In a different meeting, he met with some grassroots folks to expand and reinforce Ed Martin’s links with the conservative base—a base that is losing its ties with the Republican Party. Another brief meeting was when Steve Michael spoke at a Cass County ‘Pub gathering last week.

In April, I asked if Ed Martin was willing to reach out—and listen to, the conservatives, Libertarian Republicans and those whose loyalty isn’t necessarily with the Republican Party. I can now say, “Yes, he is.”

There’s hope yet for the survival of the ‘Pub party in Missouri…but only if Ed Martin and the ‘Pub state central committee really listens and heeds those who are feeling disenfranchised with the ‘Pubs.