Monday’s Review

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSczwSA0_rO4tNqCsfF0bhYNTWsKfo5QUvhJPa-LhNzsXjcI8ABJust after Thanksgiving I read an article that predicted gas under $2/gallon by Christmas. I didn’t believe it. My wife told me that price of unleaded regular at our neighborhood gas ‘n grub was $2.149 this morning. That’s down 11¢ since Saturday, the last time I remember seeing a gas price. OPEC’s oil war against our fracking and oil-shale technology continues. The US will cave as soon as OPEC complains to Obama. In the meantime, enjoy the low gas prices while you can.

***

Quote of the Day from Bloomberg News…

Bloomberg: “Of the 23 Republican senators up for re-election in 2016, 16 voted for Cruz’s parliamentary objection, known as a point of order, against what he called Obama’s “amnesty.” Two of them, Rand Paul [R-Ky.] and Marco Rubio [R-Fla.], are — like Cruz — considering presidential bids…”

Bloomberg News appears to think this action is negative, limiting spending, pandering to the voters of 2016. On the contrary, I think these Senators heeded the voices of their constituents and their votes should be lauded, not ridiculed.

***

There was a terrorist hostage incident in Sydney, Australia. Five people were shot, two killed including the RIF who started it all. From initial reports, their other person fatally shot was killed by the RIF. The Sydney Police, in another report, admit using live ammunition.

 

To be Grubered…

http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/12/09/Editorial-Opinion/Images/205733974.jpg?uuid=BU9scn_pEeSfOJWhh-TB9w

Jonathan Gruber, professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), listens during a House Oversight Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2014. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

A new verb and noun has entered our political lexicon, “Gruber.” In the verb form, it means to frankly speak the truth in an extremely stupid manner. An example of this is when MIT Professor Jonathon Gruber admitted he thought Americans were stupid to believe the claims of the White House on Obamacare.

“He’s a gruber,” is another form of the word. In this case it describes someone who makes an utterly stupid statement that revealed a truth the speaker had intended to conceal.

Gruber had his time before Congress yesterday. He continued to dig himself deeper. Congressman Darryl Issa also had some pithy comments.

Gruber apologizes for ‘mean and insulting’ ObamaCare comments

Published December 09, 2014

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber tried to explain and even justify his controversial comments about ObamaCare during a profuse apology on Tuesday before a House committee — as Rep. Darrell Issa accused him of creating a false model as part of “a pattern of intentional misleading” to get ObamaCare passed. 

Gruber, himself a well-paid consultant during the drafting of the law, was hammered by Republicans on the House oversight committee at his first appearance on Capitol Hill since videos of his remarks surfaced.

Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also came down hard on Marilyn Tavvener, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who he has accused in the past of allegedly inflating enrollment numbers and “cooking the books.”

Issa told Gruber: “You made a series of troubling statements that were not only an insult to the American people, but revealed a pattern of intentional misleading [of] the public about the true impact and nature of ObamaCare.” 

Gruber has come under fire for claiming ObamaCare’s authors took advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter.” 

He delivered a mea culpa of sorts in his opening remarks on Tuesday for what he called his “mean and insulting” comments, explaining some of his remarks while trying to take some of them back. After once saying a lack of transparency helped the law pass, Gruber said Tuesday he does not think it was passed in a “non-transparent fashion.” 

He also expressed regret for what he called “glib, thoughtless and sometimes downright insulting comments.” 

“I sincerely apologize for conjecturing with a tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion,” Gruber said. “I knew better. I know better. I’m embarrassed and I’m sorry.” 

He said he “behaved badly” but stressed that “my own inexcusable arrogance is not a flaw in the Affordable Care Act.” 

Gruber’s appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Tuesday marked one of Issa’s last, high-profile shots at the health care law before he hands over his chairmanship next year. Issa, R-Calif. — who has led the committee through controversial probes of the Benghazi attacks, the IRS scandal and more — led the questioning of Gruber, an MIT economist. 

The videos of Gruber’s remarks have renewed Republican concerns over the health care law, and the way in which it was drafted and passed. Lawmakers also have obtained videos that show Gruber saying the act was written in a “very tortured way.” 

Issa and democrat Elijah Cummings questioned Gruber when he appeared before the Committee. Cummings was more concerned about the truth revealed, the democrat view of voters, than the fact that the entire concept of Obamacare was a fraud.

The column continues.

During questioning, Issa asked Gruber, “Are you stupid?” 

“I don’t think so, no,” he responded. 

Issa added: “So you’re a smart man who said some … really stupid things.” 

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, also criticized Gruber for giving opponents of the law a “PR gift.” 

“You wrapped it up with a bow,” Cummings said, while claiming the controversy “has nothing to do with the substance of this issue.” 

Business as usual in Obama’s Washington.

***

For my Navy and Marines friends…

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/navy/sports/m-footbl/auto_player/10613312.jpeg

Navy’s new “Don’t Tread on Me” football uniform.

At the 115th meeting of the football teams from the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy on Saturday, the Midshipmen will be decked out in special uniforms featuring a stylized version of the First Navy Jack, the rattlesnake flag first flown at the bow of naval vessels during the Revolutionary War warning foes “DON’T TREAD ON ME.” Navy leads the series 58-49-7.

***

Boehner is planning on selling out conservatives with his newly announced budget. The budget contains funding for Obamacare and Amnesty and provides funding through September, 2015. Boehner fears the MSM and is giving in to the democrats. He should fear us, those who voted for the new GOP-led Congress, instead.

BUDGET DEAL: WILL THE FAT LADY SING?
Though we have seen similar deals evaporate before, an agreement has reportedly been reached on a $1.1 trillion spending bill that, if passed, would avert a partial government shutdown while delaying a fight over President Obama’s immigration actions until early 2015. Fox News: “The GOP-led House Appropriations Committee released the plan, which would keep most of the government funded through September 2015, following days of backroom negotiations. The government technically runs out of money at midnight Thursday. The narrow window raises the likelihood that lawmakers will have to pass a stopgap spending bill to buy time…. Strong opposition to the House budget plan from the Republicans’ conservative caucus could force GOP chamber leaders to rely on Democratic votes to avert a government shutdown. House Speaker John Boehner can afford to lose only 17 caucus votes before he must turn to support from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi, D-Calif., has said her party would be willing to help but has signaled she may make some demands.” — FOX Newsletter.

Boehner is not without opposition, however.

GOPers push amendment to defund temporary amnesty - DailyCaller: “[N]ew anti-amnesty language is being pushed by Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon, South Carolina’s Rep. Mick Mulvaney and Virginia Rep. Dave Brat…The draft amendment [to the budget bill] bars various agencies from spending any money to implement Obama’s amnesty, including any fees paid by legal immigrants to immigration agencies…The amendment will be examined on Wednesday by the powerful rules committee, which sets the rules for debates.” — FOX Newsletter and The Daily Caller.

Boehner and McConnell are working to tighten their control of the House and the Senate. Representative Darryl Issa is being shuffled off to an “Intellecutal Property” committee and Senator Jeff Session is being booted off his Budget Committee.

Intended Consequences

http://www.millcreekrc.org/cms/index.php/mcrc-photo-gallery/image?view=image&format=raw&type=img&id=162Saturday was a range day. I’m in the process of joining a new rifle club. Saturday was the time for the required safety class. It’s a growing range with pistol, shotgun and rifle ranges up to 500yds.

A club member and shooting buddy joined me after the class. We did a bit of pistol shooting (my Colt Commander does give me hammer bite!) and then shot 10″ steel gongs at 200yds. I surprised myself with hits using the iron sights on my AR Frankengun (Olympic upper and lower receivers plus the barrel, with DPMS innards.)

One of my to-does is cleaning my pistols and rifle. That also means I have to clean up my office to free up needed space.  What a way to force me into Spring cleaning!

***

I wrote about the Kelo Decision last week in a post titled, Boundaries. The decision allowed the municipality of New London in Connecticut to seize private property (Kelo’s) for a developer’s use. The argument was that the developer would put the property into better use (read generate more tax revenue to the city,) than the private owner. The suit went to SCOTUS and was upheld. A travesty. It was a win for the left who believe everything belongs to government and government allows ‘private’ owners to use their property only under governmental ‘guidance.’

That line of thought has arisen here in Missouri—St. Louis, to be specific.

St. Louis County Abrogates Property Rights

By Timothy Birdnow, April 29, 2014

St. Louis County, Mo. is planning to force property owners to purchase a landlord’s license to rent out or even allow friends or family to inhabit a privately owned domicile.

Not content with collecting fees for “safety” inspections and occupancy permits, the county government is now intent on imposing a landlord’s license and extracting yet another fee.  Duplication of current law aside, this new requirement strikes at the heart of a fundamental legal right: the right to ownership of property.

Private property is the most basic principle in American jurisprudence.  When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he borrowed from the philosopher John Locke, who asserted three fundamental rights enjoyed by all: life, liberty, and property.  Jefferson, at the urging of Benjamin Franklin, changed the last to “pursuit of happiness” because he did not want to give slaveholders any sort of legal justification should abolition finally overtake the “peculiar institution.”  Still, everyone knew what Jefferson was getting at here, and though the Declaration is not a foundational legal document, it does illustrate the mindset of the Founders, who clearly believed in ownership of property.

As John Adams stated:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

And so it is; without a sacred view of property, a society inevitably slides into despotism.

The first property right is self-ownership.  We have seen the left nibble away at this concept, and the ObamaCare mandate has effectively tipped the scales toward state ownership of American citizens.

With that under their belts, the Progressives can now turn their lustful eyes back toward real estate.  Actually, they have been nibbling away at the rights of property owners for decades.  Eminent domain, the Fair Housing Act, zoning restrictions, occupancy permits, “safety” inspections (which are more often than not also about cosmetics), property maintenance codes – all circumscribe the rights of owners to have final say on the use of their property.  Yes, many of these things were well-intentioned and have contributed to a more pleasant society, but the movement has been ever toward government regulation of private property.  While property rights are not absolute, where does ownership end?  If government tells the owner how he can use his property, can it be said that we have private ownership at all?

We’ve seen some huge leaps in recent years: the Kelo decision allowing property to be taken from the lawful owner and given to a developer, for instance, or the declaration of property as environmentally sensitive and so not allowed to be developed.  We have the Cliven Bundy affair; Bundy had purchased grazing rights, which are in themselves a contractual interest.  We’ve seen government shut off water to farmers , or allow lands to be flooded, bankrupting farmers and forcing them off their lands.

Now we witness the imposition of licensing requirements for property owners.  The issuance of a license presupposes that government holds the rights and that the “owner” is being granted a privilege.

Read the bill here.

The bill is chock-full of “at the discretion of the Administrator.”

The column continues at the website, but that last sentence is crucial—“at the whim…” In short, the rules can change any at moment for any reason or for no reason at all! The result is total governmental control. He or the agent who makes the rules is the true owner of the property. If this is passed, the county will be the owner of your property, not you.

Wake-up Call!

Remember Obama’s tax on tanning salons? It includes some gym memberships, too. A Falls Church, VA gym posted this notice to their members. Some membership fees were going up. Why? Because those memberships included access to tanning machines.

“Some people who are members of the health club Planet Fitness are finding their membership costs have gone up because of [ObamaCare]…A sign posted at a Falls Church, Va. location says ‘Holders of Black Card memberships will be required to pay a tax on these memberships Starting January 1, 2014 as required by the implementation of provisions of [ObamaCare]…This is not a change in your membership fee but rather a tax required by the government. The reason these accounts are forced to charge the new tax is because they include the option for members to tan at the clubs.  Obamacare has a tax on tanning salons.  It doesn’t matter if the member uses or does not use the tanning facilities.” — FOXNews.

Obamacare taxes, oh, excuse me, user fees, are everywhere and are insidious.

***

Remember Obama, yesterday, declaring another one-year delay on employer mandates for Obamacare? Well, there is a hitch. Businesses can only receive the delay if they declare to the IRS, on pain of perjury, that Obamacare had nothing to do with any layoffs or changes in employment.

Obama’s unlawful declaration forces businesses to lie and committee perjury if Obamacare’s costs forces them to layoff or change working conditions and still receive the mandate delay.

FIRMS MUST SWEAR OBAMACARE NOT A FACTOR IN FIRINGS
Is the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so. — FOXNews.

The Wall Street Journal added this to Obama’s offer.

“Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is. His Administration’s cavalier notions about law enforcement are especially notable here for their bias for corporations over people. The White House has refused to suspend the individual insurance mandate, despite the harm caused to millions who are losing their previous coverage. Liberals say the law isn’t harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite.” — WSJ.

Pure lawlessness.

***

Boehner and Cantor are giving away the farm again. They say they will hold hostage the Debt Limit Increase if it doesn’t include a delay in the implementation of Obamacare and approval of the Keystone pipeline. They refuse to consider that Obama just declared a delay (with strings attached, see above,) and the Canadians are now shipping their oil to China. The impact of Keystone to the US economy is much less now than when it was proposed—and killed by Obama.

What will happen is that any provision added by the House will be removed by Reid when the bill arrives in the Senate. Then, Boehner and the House RINOs will rubber stamp the change. The debt limit will go up, no cuts in spending, no Keystone approval, and Obama agrees to delay Obamacare employer mandates for a year. Oh, yes, toss out that last one, Obama says he did that yesterday.

But the RINO leadership in the House should take heed of other House ‘Pubs. Some are fomenting revolt.

Conservatives revolt over lack of cuts

 

By Pete Kasperowicz, February 11, 2014, 09:09 am

Rank and file House Republicans opposed to their leadership’s debt limit plan are brainstorming new ways to limit federal spending.

Even as GOP leaders seem intent on pushing through a debt ceilng bill this week that doesn’t demand any new spending curbs, several conservative lawmakers are pressing for new ideas.

A few Republicans are hoping to to tie a debt ceiling increase to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Late Monday, Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) proposed legislation that would require both the House and Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment.

Crawford’s bill is an attempt to put limits on congressional spending habits that have pumped up the national debt to more than $17.2 trillion.

On the House floor Monday, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he could support tying a balanced budget amendment to the debt ceiling, but that it would have to cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product. King also said he wants a supermajority requirement for any new tax increases.

“This would get me to vote for a limited debt ceiling increase… a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution,” he said.

Another proposal would link Congressional pay to spending cuts…Congressmen’s pay would be cut whenever promised spending cuts fail to happen. Another Congressmen quipped that the provision wouldn’t last the ten-year period of the proposal.

UPDATE: Just now, Boehner admitted he couldn’t make a deal with House ‘Pubs so he is now caving to democrats on a ‘clean’ debt limit increase with no strings by leveraging democrat votes to force passage of the bill.

***

The American Thinker posted a column today on their website titled, “Dead Souls in the Republican Leadership.” It’s too long to post here. Go to the website and read the column there. It’s accuracy is amazing.

Dead Souls In the Republican Leadership

By John T. Bennett, February 11, 2014

“America cannot become the world and still be America.”

So warned the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington in his 2004 article “America’s Dead Souls.” Huntington’s article was prophetic, and it explains why some GOP pols have taken the side of big business and illegal immigrants over the interests of our nation.

“In a variety of ways, the American establishment, governmental and private, has become increasingly divorced from the American people,” Huntington wrote.

Huntington’s core point was that the American elite has grown extremely distant — socially, economically, morally, and politically — from the public. This trend, he warned, undermines our democracy and harms the interests of the majority.

Huntington wrote that the American majority is concerned with “societal security,” meaning sustaining “existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity.” Elites, however, placed societal security behind “supporting international trade and migration” and “encouraging minority identities and cultures at home.”

The framework laid out in “America’s Dead Souls” is crucial to understanding how to respond to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

You can finish the column at the website.
 

***

A parting note. Shirley Temple died today at age 85. Too many today have never seen any of the movies she made as a child star between 1934 through 1938. Shirley continued to act for a few years more but ‘retired’ at age 22. She married, raised a family and later in life became the U.S. Ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia.

She was one of a few child stars who wasn’t ruined by their popularity.

Democrats Lite

Judge Napolitano appeared last night on FOX news debating Juan Williams on the passage of the Ryan-Murray budget bill in the House. Boehner gained kudos from  Juan Williams and the Left.

Judge Napolitano On Budget Deal: “No Distinction Between Boehner And Pelosi”

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: The speaker has demonstrated a poverty of leadership. The speaker has demonstrated that he can. –

BRET BAIER: Wait a second, he just got 332 votes.

NAPOLITANO: Well, he did get 332 votes because he got the Democrats to vote with him and he scared — and he lost the Republican who retain the value of small government. This doesn’t decrease the deficit, it adds to it. It doesn’t decrease the debt, it adds to it. It spends $63 billion more than we are spending now. It obliterate the concept of the sequester which they said was going to decrease all this stuff two years ago. This is an absolute fraud. They’re afraid of reality. They have no sense, the Republican establishment. They have no sense of small government values that they were elected to put into law.

JUAN WILLIAMS: Wow, tell us how you feel.

NAPOLITANO: This is basically Democrat lite. There is no distinction between John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi on this.

BAIER: What about the argument that Charles makes, Judge, that holding off the government shutdown allows Republicans to focus on what they want to focus on, which is Obamacare and other things to win elections because they need W’s on the board.

NAPOLITANO: It used to be a basic tenet of Republican principles you don’t have what you don’t have and you don’t go in more debt. They are spending a trillion and a half more than they are taking in and that is simply unacceptable. It’s going to make matters far worse. That $17 trillion will be $20 trillion at this rate at the end of President Obama’s term.

WILLIAMS: Listen, they are doing the right thing finally. Let me just tell you something, they’re doing the right thing for the American people and for Republicans. You have just written off, by the way, the majority of the Republicans on the Hill because the majority voted for this bill.

— RealClearPolitics, December 12, 2013.

Yes, Juan, perhaps we should just write off the majority of the ‘Pubs on the Hill. They aren’t representing us!

In other news, Texas Senator, and McConnell’s #2 in the Senate, John Cornyn acquired a strong primary opponent.

Stockman issues serious challenge to Cornyn in Texas senate race

Thursday, December 12, 2013 – Liberty In Our Time by Dave Nalle

AUSTIN, Texas, December 10, 2013 — One minute before the Texas filing deadline for primary candidates on Monday, Senator John Cornyn received a serious primary challenge from conservative Congressman Steve Stockman.

Stockman declared war on Cornyn in an uncompromising press release, calling Cornyn a “Harry Reid Republican,” calling him a “liberal” in almost every sentence and referencing Cornyn’s record of supporting Obamacare and big government in the Senate and his opposition to conservative candidates like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Stockman’s comments point pretty clearly at his strategy for the campaign with multiple references to recently elected Senator Ted Cruz. Despite the attacks he has faced from the left and in the national media, Cruz is hugely popular among conservatives and Republican voters in Texas. Stockman’s goal in the campaign will be to convince voters who like Cruz that they would like to have another Senator like Cruz to replace Cornyn.

When reached for a comment Monday evening, Stockman said “John Cornyn seems to only be a conservative around election time. For the other five years of his term he spends his time violating Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment and undermining conservative Republicans as we saw with his misguided attack on Ted Cruz.”

Cornyn’s record in the Senate gives Stockman plenty to work with. With votes for Medicare Part D, TARP, the NDAA and PIPA, Cornyn seems to line up with Democrats and Senate moderates like John McCain and Lindsey Graham pretty consistently. Cornyn has a record as a big spender, raising the debt limit 8 times, voting for the Fiscal Cliff deal that raised taxes on 77% of Americans and voting against fiscally responsible Senate budget proposals. Cornyn’s recent vote against defunding Obamacare and his derisive public attack on Ted Cruz after his record setting floor speech against the president’s troubled healthcare plan have made Cornyn particularly unpopular with Texas voters.

Although Cornyn had drawn no major challengers prior to Stockman’s last minute filing, a poll taken by Public Policy Polling a month ago showed that 49% of Republican primary voters wanted a major conservative candidate to run against Cornyn. Cornyn’s approval rating has dropped to 33%. The poll also showed that 62% of Republican primary voters prefer Cruz to Cornyn.

Trisha Neimi liked this post

Scooped’em!

OK, OK, I’m gloating a bit. I scooped the big boys with my post yesterday. I received notices my post yesterday was retweeted and has been shared, linked and reprinted by a number of conservative websites.

***

The dems, in particular Harry Reid, see their power waning in Washington. They’ve looked into their crystal balls and foresee a drubbing next year in the mid-term elections. The failure of Obamacare, not just the rollout, but the massive loss of insurance coverage by millions of working Americans will have an impact in the elections next year.

That means it is possible for the dems to lose the Senate. The ‘Pubs can’t pickup enough seat of have a veto-proof majority, there aren’t that many senate seats up for re-election, but Reid may not be Majority Leader much longer. That possibility has created in Reid a sense of desperation, leading him to threaten to invoke the ‘nuclear’ option to block ‘Pub filibusters and pack the federal court bench with liberal sycophants.

Why the threats at is time? Perhaps it is to distract the public’s—and the media’s, attention from the disaster of Obamacare to them and their party. That seems, to me, to be a more likely motive than the dems continuing attempt to pack the federal courts.

***

Who is the greatest lawbreaker in the country today? On this question, nearly everyone has an opinion. A growing number of those opinions say: Barack Obama.

Reining in America’s Greatest Lawbreaker, President Obama

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons, November 21, 2013

The Hill reports that Republican members of Congress are contemplating actions to combat President Obama’s lawbreaking methods of ruling from the Oval Office.

“GOP officials have long claimed that the president has violated the law and the Constitution through administrative actions on issues ranging from immigration to nominations to the U.S. military involvement in Libya,” writes The Hill.  Conservative Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah is quoted, “There are a lot of examples of this.”

A lot, indeed, and not just recently.  As reported at American Thinker last year in March, nine GOP state attorneys general issued a report on Obama’s unprecedented officious lawbreaking.

Obama has now reached the tipping point, however, with his illegal “fix” of Obamacare designed to overcome his lie that Americans can keep their health insurance.  The president’s open lawbreaking following his notorious lying puts Democrats’ electoral prospects at risk.  It frustrates the unquestioning goodwill and endless love of some members of the political establishment.

Obama has lied to the American people many times, which is unbecoming of his office.   But his unilateral actions in violation of the Constitution and even statutory law are so brazen that they seem calculated to undermine our very system of government, even to the point that they can be called “un-American” from the perspective of our heritage.

British Member of Parliament Daniel Hannan has a marvelous essay at The Wall Street Journal adapted from his new book, “Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World.”   The topic of his essay helps us understand why Barack Obama is actually the greatest lawbreaker in American history.

If you consider that claim hyperbole, factor this:  No person, corporation, union boss or corporate CEO — no criminal — who has violated the law could count every American as their victims.  President Obama can.

Hannan’s essay describes how Americans and the British share an exceptionalism that has its origins in the law — the common law, to be precise.

We share a view of law that protects individual liberty and property rights through ideals and notions guaranteeing due process of law, jury trials, freedoms of speech and of publication, and so on.  The law punishes and remedies the wrong, of course, but this view of the law is that its purpose is also to protect our liberty and property rights.

That view of the law is contrary to the one held by progressives, which is that the law is to be used to coerce behavior of the people even at the expense of individual liberty and property rights.

As Hannan writes:

Above all, liberty was tied up with something that foreign observers could only marvel at: the miracle of the common law. Laws weren’t written down in the abstract and then applied to particular disputes; they built up, like a coral reef, case by case. They came not from the state but from the people. The common law wasn’t a tool of government but an ally of liberty: It placed itself across the path of the Stuarts and George III; it ruled that the bonds of slavery disappeared the moment a man set foot on English soil.

There was a fashion for florid prose in the 18th century, but the second American president, John Adams, wasn’t exaggerating when he identified the Anglosphere’s beautiful, anomalous legal system . . . as the ultimate guarantor of freedom: “The liberty, the unalienable, indefeasible rights of men, the honor and dignity of human nature . . . and the universal happiness of individuals, were never so skillfully and successfully consulted as in that most excellent monument of human art, the common law of England.”

 These ideals are of law emanating from the people to govern government itself — a republican form of government with controls on those who govern.  When the law governs government — when our government is bound down by the law — our liberty is best protected.

No list of the greatest documents of liberty is complete without the Magna Carta, wherein the King was told by the people that he would be ruled by law while he simultaneously ruled his people.  The Magna Carta established these principles, and the common law further evolved. 

The United States Constitution incorporates these common law principles and ideals, and affirms and institutionalizes even more such as checks and balances, and the separation of powers.  It is through these structures, institutions and ideals of law governing government that liberty is best protected.

And that is the purpose of the Constitution.  It is a law that doesn’t merely constitute or form our government; it governs government.  Violators of the Constitution are violators of law.

It is by the law that governs and controls government that we have the greatest liberty and equality under the law.  That is why America is exceptional.  Freedom breeds the most opportunity for the most people.  Opportunity allows for the greatest level of achievement. 

We are exceptional not by national origin, but because our national origin guarantees that we have law that rules the government that rules us. 

That is our English heritage.  President Obama is hostile to this view of the law, believing he can fundamentally transform America by undermining this law. 

Under Obama, we have ‘trickle-down lawbreaking,’ as with former IRS official Lois Lerner who read signals from the White House to violate the very laws she was supposed to enforce.  The signals for government bureaucrats to violate the law are everywhere in the Obama administration.

How, then, will congressional Republicans rein in Obama’s lawbreaking?

For all the criticisms directed at Senator Ted Cruz and other constitutional conservatives purportedly over tactics, establishment GOP leaders have demonstrated that they are not up to the mission.  Real leaders will stand up and call out President Obama as America’s greatest lawbreaker.

In six years, the democrats have changed this country from one of laws, to a country of lawlessness. The White House itself—Obama, his staff and all the agencies that report directly to the White House, engage daily in lawlessness. That was advantageous for them as long as they maintained power. Now, with the Obamacare fiasco affecting nearly everyone in the country, they foresee the possibility of them to losing power, leaving reams of regulations and liberal court decisions that could be used against them if/when the ‘Pubs, or anyone not a liberal, gains the White House and controls Congress.

That is what the dems and liberals fear: What goes around, comes around.

Legislate by De-legislating

Perhaps it is an idea whose time has come. One example, I’ve been told, is from Kentucky. The story goes that Kentucky has a limit on the number of statutes on the books. When that limit is reached, an old statute must be repealed before a new one can be added.

I don’t know if that story is true; I’ve heard it from various sources all my life. I have tried to do due dilligence through a number ofl searches and have not been able to verify the Kentucky story. There are numerous comments from a vast number of sources that propose the same idea. It’s one method to limit government.

A story appeared today about a town in Colorado who has adopted the old Kentucky concept and is, in a fashion, implementing it. They are repealing bad, poorly written laws, one each month for a year. They are removing statutes that punish those who innocently violate these poorly written pieces of legislation. Some of these statutes appear to have been passed specifically to target a selected group or individuals.

Tiny Colorado city busy repealing laws during a ‘Year of Freedom’

Greg Campbell, 6:46 PM 08/12/2013

After a busy state legislative session, Glendale, Colo. — a one square-mile enclave of libertarianism surrounded by the city and county of Denver — has decided to focus on repealing laws rather than passing new ones.

During what Mayor Mike Dunafon has called the “Year of Freedom,” Glendale is revoking one vague, arcane or redundant law a month for 12 months.

The first law stricken from the books on June 4 criminalized the sale, transfer or possession of an “assault weapon,” which was vaguely defined in city code as a gun with a folding stock and a rate of fire greater than “reasonably necessary for legitimate sports, recreation or protection activities.”

Councilman Jeff Allen called it “a very bad law and badly needed to be revoked.”

The latest to land on the chopping block is one making it illtegal for minors to be in the same building as for-profit pool tables.

In an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation, Dunafon said the law — dating from the 1970s — could have been used to ruin the owner of a Glendale restaurant, who also runs an attached nightclub with pool tables. Every time a family with kids under 18 comes in for dinner, she’s committing a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

It’s a situation that could have been exploited, Dunafon said, by hypothetical unscrupulous developers who would rather run her out of business than buy out her lease.

“The basic idea is that all we do is excessively legislate,” Dunafon said. “We don’t ever take laws off the books.”

Continuing to outlaw things like minors near a pool table — Dunafon pointed out that even the YMCA has pool tables — creates a situation where “you have government as its worst,” he said. “It becomes then like a homeowners association. Guy across the street, he doesn’t like the color of your house, so he goes through the code book and makes you change the color of your house.”

Dunafon said too many elected officials forget that their jobs aren’t just about passing new laws.

“De-legislation is also legislation,” he said. “They don’t think in those terms. They just think of the next oppressive thing they’re going to do to the guy down the street. That’s really where the Year of Freedom came from. … Take this stuff off the books, clean it up and restore freedom to the people.”

The column continues on a second page on the website. Isn’t it wonderful, in progressive-tainted Colorado, that some intelligent thought still exists and there are elected officials who still aim to remove impediments in the lives of their constituents.

I challenge all our elected officials from our local city councils to our county, state and federal governments: Examine the books for outmoded, poorly written or malicious statutes that target specific groups and repeal them.