Tag: GOP

Us vs Them


Justin Smith tackles the existence of political gridlock in America today, blaming it on the irreconcilable differences between the Dems and GOP. Justin quite correctly points to the gridlock as the Dems have lurched toward Marxism sanitized under the term – Democratic Socialism. Just like the Dems like to call themselves Progressives to disguise their current Marxist agenda, telling Americans that a Democratic Socialist is a Socialism for the people.

 

Spoiler alert: Justin believes (and I agree) that the Two-Party system as it exists today makes America ungovernable. When America is ungovernable, what will it lead to?

 

JRH 2/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

***************

Us vs Them

The Republic Hangs In The Balance: Communists, Devils and SOBs

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/10/2019 9:07 PM

 

Most of the American public feels that the future of the Republic hangs in the balance. “Four more years of Trump… and it will be the end of us…” they say. Or… “I hope those Democrats don’t get into office; did you see those taxes they’re proposing?”

 

We are programmed to see the world that way. It’s “Us vs. Them.” You just have to decide which “Us” you’re part of.

 

But what if you’ve chosen the wrong “Us”? What if neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will save the Republic?

 

We’re pretty well stuck with the Two-Party System for Now — the Choice We made Despite George Washington’s admonishment against parties — until we can kill the parties off, DISCARD THEM LIKE OLD BROKEN DOWN SHOES.

 

America needs to kill the two party system and simply allow the best man or woman with the best ideas and vision for the nation win the day. But that will not be an easy thing, since parties determine the ballot; however, it can be done, if the people will it so.

 

Short of this, patriotic Americans must help both parties purge their ranks of anti-American communists, socialists, Muslims and globalists, who do not work within the confines of the U.S. Constitution and do not protect and defend it and our nation’s Founding Principles. It’s past time we make it known that the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao have absolutely no place in America’s culture.

 

I am afraid it’s going to take a civil war to drive this point home. Our divide has never been so great, all due to one side’s abandoning the vision and the mechanisms placed in our system, by Our Founding Fathers.

 

We have arrived at the day described by Washington, when men and women place party allegiance over allegiance and loyalty to America. But it’s even more serious than many can know. We have allowed a large segment of the population to be indoctrinated by the advocates and progenitors of Marxist Socialism, a foreign ideology that is antithetical to our Founding Principles, acting through sedition and treason against our nation; and this large segment is now represented by the Democratic Party, just as RINOs are its agents in the Republican Party.

 

Communism has long infiltrated our nation and both parties [Dems], from its spawning in 1848, and it seeks our subjugation and the end of individual liberty.

 

So, as we proceed rather warily and regard the future for America’s Children, when You select a candidate for any office, try to get Your community on the same page to vote for someone — A Person, A Statesman and Not A Party — who holds proven views that support the greatest economic prosperity through an individual’s own efforts and free choices; who supports known ideas, virtues and principles that allow for the greatest realm of individual liberty possible.

 

Work like hell to get them elected.

 

And then push all elected representatives to rescind superfluous laws and bad or illegitimate law that impedes any God-given right or the Bill of Rights, and make these legislators ask the following before each bill is voted upon.

 

Does this bill help all Americans? Or does it harm more Americans than it helps?

 

Does this bill create real potential for greater prosperity? Or does it impede economic growth?

 

Does this bill take anything away from individual liberty? Too many bills do this very thing simply due to the fact they fall under the auspices of the government; by this alone, Congress should be passing VERY FEW “Laws” each year, instead of thousands of new laws that not one citizen in the nation can possibly know or obey in their entirety.

 

There are only two things worth fighting for. You are either protecting your stuff or you are protecting yourself. But against whom?

 

Those devils in the Republican party? Or those SOBs, the Democrats?

 

The Democrats are vying with each other to see who can come up with a new tax, likely to be seen at the 70% mark, to take away our property; we surely don’t want them in charge.

 

But wait… the Republicans increased spending by some $500 billion over two years… and added $2 trillion to the federal debt. Where did they think that money would come from?

 

Where is the “Us” worthy of support? Where is the “Them” that should be annihilated? Well … for starters we definitely can say it is those illiberal and intolerant Communists, Socialists, Fascists and Muslims within our borders, who should be annihilated; since they have just about forced our nation to Her knees as they repeatedly and often attack our Founding Judeo-Christian Principles, Our Constitution and Our Freedoms and Liberties and God-given Rights.

 

Tell Your Congressmen and Senators, that You would PREFER THEY DO NOTHING RATHER THAN PASS BAD, ILLEGITIMATE LAW THAT FURTHER ERODES OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.

 

Make this a plan for ELECTION 2020!!!

 

~ Justin O Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the /editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Conservative Vision vs. Leftist Vision – The Next Civil War


John R. Houk

© July 2, 2018

Dems are promoting confrontation against those that have an ideological difference with the Leftist line of thought. Those that differ ideologically are Conservatives and President Trump supporters in particular.

 

The current face of the rabble-rousing Dems is Rep. Maxine Waters. Soon after she began a campaign of pushing her comrade listeners to confront members of the Trump Administration – which turns out to be Conservative Republicans not actually in the Administration – Maxine acolytes have been accosting people so viciously with verbal abuse and profanity, I am surprised fists haven’t flown.

 

There are probably several incidents, but what comes to the top of my mind are Secretary Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi all accosted in public venues by Trump-hating Leftist Loons.

 

Kirstjen Nielsen, Sarah Huckabee Sanders & Pam Bondi

 

In the case of those three women I can see a scenario in which a chivalrous male or group of males physically takes a swing at idiot Leftists. From there I can see groups of Trump supporters begin engaging groups of hostile Dems, Leftist Loons and downright Marxists like Antifa.

 

Eventually rioting escalates into armed confrontations. Then what follows? Probably the next Civil War in the United States of America.

 

JRH 7/2/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

America’s COMING civil war? Too late, it has already begun

 

By Glenn Reynolds

Published July 2, 2018

Jewish World Review

 

Cracked U.S. Flag

 

The other day, author Tom Ricks asked whether we’re heading toward a civil war. “I don’t believe we’re to Kansas of the 1850s yet. But we seem to be lurching . . . in that direction,” he wrote.

Ricks was commenting on “What Democratic rage would look like,” a Bloomberg opinion column that quotes political scientist Thomas Schaller as saying, “I think we’re at the beginning of a soft civil war. … I don’t know if the country gets out of it whole.”

 

That sounds pretty serious. The column by Francis Wilkinson presents a catalog of things Democrats are mad about — from the existence of the electoral college to Trump’s “propaganda apparatus” — and predicts that if Democrats lose the midterm elections, there will be hell to pay. (And Republicans, you know, could make a similar list of their own complaints.)

“I don’t know exactly what that would look like,” Wilkinson writes. “But liberals have a great deal of cultural, academic and economic heft, stretching from Hollywood to Harvard. Just this week, some Hollywood powerhouses flirted with leveraging their clout against the Trumpist Fox News. There are endless variations on such a power play. If Democrats opt to use their power more aggressively — breaking rules — Schaller’s soft civil war hardly seems unlikely.”

 

THE CIVIL WAR IS ALREADY STARTING

 

Well, actually this sort of thing seems to be well underway. Hollywood has basically turned its products, and its award shows, into showcases for “the resistance.” Americans are already sorting themselves into communities that are predominantly red or blue. And in heavily blue Washington, D.C., Trump staffers find that a lot of people don’t want to date them because of their politics.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was even kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, because the owner and employees disliked her politics. This seems like a small thing, but it would have been largely unthinkable a generation ago.

And, in a somewhat less “soft” manifestation, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was bullied out of a restaurant by an angry anti-Trump mob, and a similar mob also showed up outside of her home.

 

Will it get worse? Probably. To have a civil war, soft or otherwise, takes two sides. But as pseudonymous tweeter Thomas H. Crown notes, it’s childishly easy in these days to identify people in mobs, and then to dispatch similar mobs to their homes and workplaces. Eventually, he notes, it becomes “protesters all the way down, and if we haven’t yet figured out that can lead to political violence, we’re dumb.”

Apparently, some of us are dumb or else want violence. As Crown warns, “We carefully erected civil peace to avoid this sort of devolution-to-a-mob. It is a great civilizational achievement and it is intensely fragile.” Yes, it is indeed fragile, and many people will miss it when it’s entirely gone.

 

POLITICAL CONTEMPT IS THE PROBLEM

 

Marriage counselors say that when a couple view one another with contempt, it’s a top indicator that the relationship is likely to fail. Americans, who used to know how to disagree with one another without being mutually contemptuous, seem to be forgetting this. And the news media, which promote shrieking outrage in pursuit of ratings and page views, are making the problem worse.

What would make things better? It would be nice if people felt social ties that transcend politics. Americans’ lives used to involve a lot more intermediating institutions — churches, fraternal organizations, neighborhoods — that crossed political lines. Those have shrunk and decayed, and in fact, for many people politics seems to have become a substitute for religion or fraternal organizations. If you find your identity in your politics, you’re not going to identify with people who don’t share them.

The rules of bourgeois civility also helped keep things in check, but of course those rules have been shredded for years. We may come to miss them.

America had one disastrous civil war, and those who fought it did a surprisingly good job of coming together afterward, realizing how awful it was to have a political divide that set brother against brother. Let us hope that we will not have to learn that lesson again in a similar fashion.

 

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself and is a columnist at USA TODAY.

++++++++++++

The second ‘civil’ war

 

By Bob Livingston

June 28, 2018

Personal Liberty

 

Maxine Waters Rabble-Rousing

 

The “tolerant” left will tolerate nothing that doesn’t comport to their radical orthodoxy. And seeing their policies rejected by the electorate, they have sought to use government, the courts and a bullying media to force their will on others. Now they’re employing a new tactic: encouraging and engaging in outright bullying and physical confrontations.

 

In the last several days we’ve seen President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary and her staff harassed as they ate at a public restaurant, Trump’s spokes puppet [Blog Editor: Poor choice of words for a victim of the Left] Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked to leave run out of a restaurant (where the restaurant owner then followed her family to another restaurant and verbally harangued them), Trump staffer Stephen Miller’s apartment swarmed by protesters who tacked up “Wanted” posters, Senator Mitch McConnell and his wife Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation, surrounded and shouted at by a mob of “students,” a DHS staffer reporting a decapitated and burned animal carcass being left on his porch, and Representative Maxine Waters (Communist-California) calling for organized mobs to look for “anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station,” and for them to “get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

 

The mainstream propaganda media are providing cover and granting legitimacy for these actions both subtly and overtly. Any calls for tamping down the vitriol are tepid and feckless, at best.

 

The violent, radical left seems to be revising its playbook from the 1970s. We’ve seen their protests and demonstrations escalate since Trump’s election.

 

Civility in political discussion is now passé. Of course, name-calling, expletives, ad hominems and physical attacks are the refuge of the ignorant. It’s a convenient fallback position for those unable or unwilling to defend their positions with facts.

 

It is also a common practice of the ignorant to automatically assign evil motives to a person or group expressing a counter opinion. Many reach the conclusion that any person or any group that disagrees politically or philosophically is somehow bad and intends to inflict as much harm or heartache as possible on their opponents.

 

But incivility in political discourse is not new. And anyone who takes an honest look at American history understands this.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said, “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.”

 

It pains many of us still, because as long as this practice continues we will be opposing one another rather than mounting opposition to those in positions of power who continue to steal our freedoms by passing unConstitutional laws and steal our wealth by debasing our currency.

 

As the left is increasingly inciting violence, it should bear in mind the maxim that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There will eventually be a response by equally radical right.

 

Remember that governments — all governments — need crisis, no matter how much lip service they give to “peace.” Crisis is a well-known Machiavellian strategy to gain and solidify political power and persuade public opinion.

 

Crisis provides the stage where governments can control all sides. At least they can arrange events to “naturally” unfold.

 

We are living in critical times. We are seeing before our eyes the breakdown of the rule of law, which leads to the breakdown of law and order. It’s increasingly obvious that mass chaos if not outright civil war is the agenda of the radical left. Remember there is nothing “civil” about civil wars.

 

Bob Livingston founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

________________________

Conservative Vision vs. Leftist Vision – The Next Civil War

John R. Houk

© July 2, 2018

______________________

The second ‘civil’ war

 

 2018 Glenn Harlan Reynolds

 

About JWR

 

JWR is a free magazine published five days a week on the World Wide Web of interest to people of faith and those interested in learning more about contemporary Judaism from Jews who take their religion seriously.

 

Our inaugural editorial is also our mission statement.

 

Readers, individuals wishing to submit an article on “spec,” or make a tax deductible donation and those seeking advertising rates may contact JWR by email or by calling (718) 972-9241. Please note that all correspondence with JWR remains our property and may be used accordingly.

 

… READ THE REST

____________________

The second ‘civil’ war

 

© 2018 Personal Liberty ®

 

GOP: Enact MAGA Agenda or Disappear


John R. Houk

© August 31, 2017

 

I departed from the Republican Party after supporting a GOP candidate for President in 2012 I did not in the first place. THEN he; i.e. Mitt Romney, lost! Romney ran a weenie campaign refusing to point out Obama’s horrendous record and allowing Obama to get away with lying without confronting the situation. So I left the GOP.

 

Even though I stopped being a card-carrying Republican, I ended up voting for GOP candidates in my State. A Democrat was, is and always will be an unviable choice! This is the case especially after Obama has turned the Democratic Party into the Communist-Dem Party.

 

Then came Donald Trump. I like most people was amused but felt this is a guy that could never win, lacked Conservative credentials and I was uncertain of any dedication he had to the Christian faith. I was Cruzing with Ted until the math eliminated his campaign.

 

So, was I going to be stuck voting for The Donald? A guy I did not want as a candidate for POTUS? So I began to listen to Donald Trump.

 

Unlike Romney, Trump was willing to Muslim terrorists Radical Islamic terrorists and call Hillary Clinton a crook. The more the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) harangued Trump, more I began to like him and his populist “Make America Great Again.”

 

But I was still dissatisfied with the Republican Party. Boehner as the Speaker was ineffective after the GOP took the House in 2014.

 

Then 2016 came. Trump won POTUS and the GOP was the majority Party in both Houses of Congress. There was the appearance that Conservatives finally had an authentic voice and reversing the curse of Obama’s Change would be imminent.

 

I WAS WRONG!

 

After 8 years of saying what happen if the Republicans controlled government with a Conservative reawakening, little happened except Congressional resistance to Trump’s MAGA agenda.

 

AGAIN, the GOP had let me and many fellow Conservatives down. President Trump was and is actually making things happen as far as Executive action will take him. But nothing concrete to the promised MAGA will be forthcoming as long as Republicans in the Senate and Republicans in the House resist President Trump. These GOP resisters might as well join the Communist-Dem Party. EVERY political inaction by the Republicans is a vote for the status quo of the Communist-Dem Party to Socialize and disrupt Christian faith and morals in America. In essence – the continuation of the Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America.

 

My fellow Americans. Do you want to live in a nation whence political correctness and multiculturalism define how you – an American – must live according to what the government tells you how to believe and worship and speak?

 

Since the Republican legislators cannot get it together enough to resist and change the Dem fundamental transformation, it might be time to abandon the GOP and look for Trump activism in a political party willing to act as a monolith for Conservative principles.

 

This is why Brent Bozell’s editorial-opinion piece on the slow death of the Republican Party is a very important read.

 

JRH 8/31/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

The Slow Death of the Republican Party

The Grand Old Party is about to commit suicide. 

 

By Brent Bozell

August 30, 2017

ACT for America

 

August 27, 2017

Breitbart Big Government

 

All this talk about Trump this, and Trump that, masks a far bigger political controversy. The Republican Party leadership in Washington, D.C., has fundamentally betrayed its constituents and they are about to learn that they’ve been double-crossed — for years.

 

Every Republican candidate’s stock speech sounds the same, the thunderous roar about a government out of control, federal spending out of control (insert charts and graphs and why, if you stack hundred dollar bills, they will reach the edge of the universe), federal taxes out of control (insert comparisons to socialist countries), the federal bureaucracy out of control (insert metaphors about chains, yokes, and the like), the family shattered with federal funding of abortion a crime against humanity (watch for it — there! The heart-wrenching sob), and our military is emasculated.

 

Two more items were added to the menu, courtesy of Obama. Obamacare Will Be Repealed! and Illegal Immigration Will Not Stand!

 

In 2009, the Democrats controlled everything, partly due to the Republicans’ cowardice on Capitol Hill, and in part because of some of the most inept candidates and campaigns America has seen in years. The Obama folks could have played it safe but went for socialist gold, using the power of the legislative and the executive branches (and later the judiciary, thank you Justice Roberts) to advance their agenda.

 

That included federal spending on a level unmatched in human history resulting ultimately in a $19 trillion in debt we simply cannot pay, and with so many tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that “infinity” is not far behind. One seventh of the economy was confiscated by the federal government with the passage of Obamacare. Our national borders were declared open and discussions over our national sovereignty closed. And to top it off, the Democrats all but declared themselves above the law.

 

The GOP harrumphed that this would not stand, by God! If only… if only America would vote them into the majority.

 

In 2009, the Tea Party was born. The Grand Old Party was rejuvenated. Happy days were here again.

 

Just one year later, the Republicans captured the House, and with that, the power of the purse. They now had the authority to stop the insane spending on so many obnoxious and wholly unnecessary ventures. They could end Obamacare simply by not funding it.

 

Instead, under the “leadership” of John Boehner, it did absolutely nothing. Why, if only we had the Senate! Then we could take on the President!

 

So in 2014, after spending hundreds of millions of campaign dollars running hundreds of thousands of television and radio ads pledging to end illegal immigration while repealing Obamacare “root and branch” (author: Mitch McConnell), they were given control of the Senate.

 

And within a month McConnell re-authorized both, along with every single other thing Harry Reid and Obama wanted for yet another year.

 

But that’s because we can’t do what we promised until we have the Presidency! The excuse was as predictable as summer heat in the Sahara.

 

In 2016, they were given that too.

 

They were given everything.

 

In January of this year, they formally controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Every single thing they’d ever promised was now possible.

 

They now had the power to enact every single spending cut they’d ever solemnly pledged. All those wasteful programs designed to fill the liberal sandbox — PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood, NEH and the rest of the alphabet soup; all the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to multi-billion-dollar corporations; all of the hundreds of billions of dollars directed toward leftist social engineering — poof! All of it could come to an end with a stroke of a pen.

 

They now had the power to restore fiscal tax sanity too. Remember the flat tax? The fair tax? Slashing the highest corporate taxes in the world? Giving you a tax break? All of it could be done with a snap of the fingers.

 

Repeal Obamacare? Check. End illegal immigration? Check. Build the wall? Check.

 

Crush the Deep State? Done, by God, done!

 

There was not a damn thing the Democrats could do to stop them from draining the swamp.

 

Except the Republican leadership didn’t mean it. With the exception of the Freedom Caucus in the House, and literally a handful in the Senate, the rank-and-file didn’t either. Not one word of it.

 

The opportunity arose for the vote to repeal Obamacare, and after huffing and puffing, and huffing and puffing some more, the dust settled and socialized health care remains the law of the land, perhaps permanently.

 

The opportunity arose for tax reform, to enact the cuts America desperately needs. It was never a matter of if, it was a matter of how much. It is now mid-August and nothing, absolutely nothing has been accomplished — even attempted!

 

And now we face the final test: the debt ceiling. Will we or won’t we stop the spending madness? Will the Republicans enact the cuts they’ve promised, or will they now be the ones to kick the can, piling evermore trillions of dollars of debt on their own grandchildren?

 

By every indication that’s precisely what they plan to do. The signal has come from President Trump, from Speaker Ryan, and from Majority Leader McConnell. The debt ceiling will be raised and no fiscal sanity will be restored.

 

There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Put them together. They are the swamp.

 

Just as Republicans have the power to enact the agenda they’ve pledged in toto, so too do they now own the federal government, in toto. It’s no longer Obamacare. It’s GOPcare. It’s no longer crazy liberal Democratic spending. It’s crazy liberal Republican spending. It’s no longer socialist Democratic Party taxation, it’s socialist Republican Party taxation. All the legislation authorizing all these programs, all the graft, all the waste, all the obscenity, all the immorality, and where Planned Parenthood is concerned, all the killing — all of it is now formally authored by the Republican Party.

 

Come the Congressional elections next year, and the presidential election in 2020, the Grand Old Party will once again bellow its hallowed promises. But this time it won’t work. This time there will be no straw men to blame. This time their voters will know those hallowed promises are not even hollow promises. They are lies.

 

These voters are tasting betrayal. They will not vote to swallow more vomit.

 

We are watching the GOP systematically committing suicide.

_______________

GOP: Enact MAGA Agenda or Disappear

John R. Houk

© August 31, 2017

_____________

The Slow Death of the Republican Party

 

© 2017 ACT Content, LLC. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. ACT for America is a registered 501 (c)(3) organization.

 

1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW | Suite 190, #614 | Washington, DC 20004 | 202.601.4169

 

About ACT for America

 

Support Act for America

 

From #NeverTrump to #NeverClinton


Hillary 2016 - Laws R 4 Little People

Here is a post that I pray provokes the sting of reality to Conservatives that are taking the Never Trump stand. If you enjoyed the last 7 ½ years Obama’s Leftist fundamental transformation of America, by all means write-in your favorite Conservative, vote for a Third Party or don’t vote at all. Following the Never Trump path will ensure the election of Obama’s third term vicariously through Crooked Hillary.

 

Honestly answering Mark Alexander’s check list of “Who is more likely to …”, should shake a Never Trumper out of their righteous indignation and principled hubris over Donald Trump’s perceived lack of integrity and at least give him a shot to keep at least some of his promises.

 

If the Donald screws up, how bad could it be compared to the continued dilution of America’s moral fiber and divested Liberty with another four to eight years of a Leftist POTUS?

 

JRH 7/29/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

From #NeverTrump to #NeverClinton

Vote for the Supreme Court! Choosing not to vote for the “lesser of two evils” is a vote for the greater of those evils.

 

By Mark Alexander

July 27, 2016

The Patriot Post

 

“In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.” —John Adams (1797)

 

Hillary v Trump

Hillary v Trump

 

(Aggravation Alert: I have received a considerable number of objections from fellow Patriots this year complaining either that my analysis of Donald Trump was too hard or too soft. This column is directed at those who believe either one to be true — the #NeverClinton and #NeverTrump folks who plan to abstain or vote for a third-party candidate.)

 

It’s no small irony that the Socialist Democratic Party is hosting its confab in Philadelphia this week, the cradle of Liberty and Rule of Law.

 

On the opening night, Bernie Sanders, the candidate who was narrowly defeated by Clinton thanks to hacked DNC emails indicating they rigged the primary, offered this assessment of the last eight years: “Together, my friends, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution — our revolution — continues.”

 

If that sounds familiar, it should. That “political revolution to transform America” would be the fulfillment of Obama’s 2008 campaign promise of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

 

On the other hand, Republicans should be debating the re-election of Mitt Romney this year, but we aren’t. Here’s why.

 

Without debating Romney’s merits all over again, the reason that the contest this year is not between Romney/Ryan and Clinton/Kaine is because millions of “faith and values” voters chose to sit it out in 2012. Weeks before the 2012 election, I had a very intelligent young Christian woman ask a question far too typical of evangelicals: “Can you really vote for a Mormon?”

 

Of course, in addition to those evangelicals, there were also millions of principled conservatives who didn’t cast their ballots in 2012, protesting that Romney was a centrist, moderate, Northeastern elitist.

 

So how did that work out?

 

Four more years of Barack Obama’s colossal failures in both domestic and foreign policy.

 

Let’s review.

 

Obama’s domestic policies have been defined by his litany of lies and legacy of scandals, most notably the failure of his so-called “economic recovery” plan; his long list of ObamaCare lies; his IRS Enemies List targeting conservatives; his “Fast and Furious” gun control ploy; the VA death panels cover-up; the immigration crisis on our southern border, and the long-overdue resignation of his corrupt attorney general, Eric Holder.

 

The Obama-Clinton foreign policy malfeasance is unparalleled in American history, including the Benghazi cover-up ahead of the 2012 election; the “Russian Spring” in Crimea; the hollow “Red Line” in the Syrian sand; the Middle East meltdown in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Gaza; the disintegration of Iraq; the dramatic resurgence of al-Qa’ida; the rise of the Islamic State; and the re-emergence of Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which is now metastasizing into Western Europe and North America.

 

All that being the case, once again, millions of conservatives are reluctant to vote because the choices are the assurance of extending Obama’s disgraceful legacy for four more years under a Clinton regime or the prospect that Donald Trump will prove to be the “lesser of two evils” come January 2017.

 

For value and principle conservatives wrestling with whether to vote for Trump or not at all, political philosophers and moral theologians have written for generations about the “incommensurability in values,” or, in common parlance, choosing between the lesser of two evils.

 

Some of my conservative friends subscribe to the observation of 19th century British theologian Charles Spurgeon, who wrote, “Of two evils, choose neither.” But Spurgeon’s words, as related to evil actions, are taken out of context in reference to civic duty. Of such duties, Spurgeon said, “I would not, however, say … despise the privilege which you have as citizens.”

 

The question of voting for Trump is no quandary for me.

 

Obama in a blie Hillary outfit toom by Ramirez

Obama in a blue Hillary outfit

 

While I understand well the nature of presidential character, and believe both Clinton and Trump fall substantially short of that character, I also understand that the outcome of the November election will not only determine our president for at least the next four years, but also the composition of the Supreme Court for at least the next quarter-century. Think about that before you decide to stay home this year or to cast a “protest vote” for a third-party candidate.

 

On this point, I would state emphatically that those who choose to sit this election out or “choose neither” are making a choice. In fact, I would argue that handing this election to Hillary Clinton is far more evil than choosing the lesser of the two. If you can’t vote for Trump, then at least vote against Clinton. If you can’t vote for Trump, then at least vote for the Supreme Court. And make no mistake: A vote this year for a third-party candidate in any state where the Clinton v Trump contest is close constitutes a vote for Clinton and a third term for Obama. Period.

 

After the conservative congressional advances across the nation in 2010 and 2014, despite the needless presidential loss in 2012, throwing this year’s contest to Clinton would be disastrous.

 

Conservative political analyst Dennis Prager wrote a letter “To My Conservative #NeverTrump Friends,” in which he makes the case for supporting Trump:

 

“The ‘conscience’ argument that one can sleep with a clear conscience by not voting for Trump [asserts] that your conscience is clear after making it possible for Clinton to win. … In the 2016 presidential race, I am not interested in moral purity. I am interested in defeating the left and its party, the Democratic Party. The notion … that we can live with another four years of a Democratic president is, forgive me, mind-boggling. To that end … multiple additional leftists on the Supreme Court, a Republican presidential victory in 2020 would mean nothing. … Left-wing judges pass so many left-wing laws that they render those who control Congress, and even the White House, almost irrelevant. I just don’t understand how anyone who understands the threat the left and the Democrats pose on America will refuse to vote for the only person who can stop them.”

 

(Notably, Prager argues that Trump’s convention speech was not “dark enough.”)

 

Last week, Donald Trump delivered his GOP convention acceptance speech, outlining in the broadest terms what his objectives would be if elected president.

This week, Hillary Clinton will conclude the DNC convention with a similar speech, promising mostly the antithesis of the Trump platform. And it is unlikely that any of her adoring media will highlight her extensive record of incompetence and lawlessness.

 

Hillary-BHO mock voters for obeying law

Hillary-BHO mocking law

 

In advance of Clinton’s diatribe, we compiled a list of questions for consideration by those who are not yet committed to vote for Trump. Our editors have expanded that list to include the following questions:

 

Who will achieve more with Republicans in Congress?

 

Who will nominate judges for the federal bench and Supreme Court who will uphold Rule of Law?

 

Who is more likely to formulate and enforce stronger foreign policy in an effort to restore America’s standing in the world?

 

Who is more likely to seek to begin rebuilding America’s military might?

 

Who is more likely to implement policies to protect America and the West from catastrophic terrorist attacks?

 

Who is more likely to clearly identify the greatest ideological threat to the West as “Islamic extremism”?

 

Who is more likely to treat our nation’s military personnel and veterans with the dignity and respect they have earned?

 

Who is more likely to enforce immigration laws and protect American borders?

 

Who is more likely to support the Second Amendment?

 

Who is more likely to reduce taxes?

 

Who is more likely to balance a budget?

 

Who is more likely to address our ruinous national debt?

 

Who is more likely to be a better communicator of free market principles?

 

Who is more likely to reduce oppressive central government regulations?

 

Who is more likely to repeal ObamaCare and implement market solutions for health care?

 

Who is more likely to repeal the onerous Dodd-Frank regulations?

 

Who has more experience creating and protecting American jobs?

 

Who is more likely to promote Americanism rather than globalism?

 

Who is more likely to flex American muscle when dealing with foreign tyrants?

 

Who is more likely to aggressively pursue energy exploration?

 

Who is more likely to re-write trade agreements that undermine the U.S. economy?

 

Who is more likely to populate their administration with free enterprise advocates?

 

Who is more likely to advocate for retention of Republican majorities in the House and Senate?

 

Who is more likely to resist the influence of Wall Street?

 

Who is more likely to reject Obama’s unconstitutional executive overreach?

 

Who is more likely to denounce Black Lives Matter and other Democrat Party fronts seeking to disunite America?

 

I’m sure you can add to this list, and I’m equally sure that Trump will fare better across the board than Clinton.

 

In her convention remarks, Michelle Obama declared, “This election … is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives.” Indeed it is, and well into the next generation. Will our children and their children fare better with leadership from Democrats on the Left or Republicans on the Right?

 

So to my fellow conservatives who don’t plan to vote in 2016, I ask the following: What will our nation look like in 2020? How about 2030?

 

I ask this question not only as a citizen and fellow Patriot, but also as one who, like many other Patriots, has family blood on the line in this election. As the father of a young Marine who is bound by oath to “Support and Defend” our Constitution, I am, like so many of you, deeply concerned about who will be our next commander in chief.

 

The last seven years have been very demoralizing for those of us who are in the trenches every day advocating for Liberty. But take heart. While Liberty is eternal, the contest to maintain its beacon of freedom is also eternal, and sitting this election out or voting for a third-party candidate in a closely contested state only makes that contest more difficult.

 

Finally, the Demos are very divided. Let’s finish them off. Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed status quo candidate in an election year for change. My advice to anyone who hasn’t yet committed to vote for Trump and the Supreme Court, or at least vote against Clinton: Embrace the suck. Just do it, and convince everyone you know to do the same.

 

(Read our analysis of Hillary Clinton’s DNC convention diatribe, and her plans to take our nation to a much darker place.

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

 

________________

*PUBLIUS*

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2016 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

[The Patriot Post depends on voluntary support from readers for operations]

 

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401

3 Comments Against Suissa ‘dump Trump’ Article


Trump Gamble or For Sure Crooked Hillary

Ari Bussel is a frequent contributor on my blog. This submission is about three comments to an anti-Trump post in the Jewish Journal by David Suissa. The three comments are pro-Trump. The third comment is penned by Ari Bussel. If you read this blog you are probably aware that I have been in Trump’s corner since Senator Ted Cruz looked at the math, realized he could not secure the GOP nomination and so dropped (or suspended) out of the nomination race. I am a Trumper primarily because the alternative is crooked Hillary, one of the most corrupt American politicians next President Barack Obama and former President Slick-Willie Clinton.

 

Ari’s submission includes the anti-Trump post entitled “Republicans must dump Trump”. Ari placed the article at the end of the comments, but if you want to know what the three comments are defending against you may wish to scroll down and read the Suissa article first.

 

JRH 6/27/16

Please Support NCCR

***********************

3 Comments Against Suissa ‘dump Trump’ Article

Republicans must dump Trump

 

Article By David Suissa

Comments Submitted by Ari Bussel

Originally: Jewish Journal

Sent: 6/26/2016 2:26 PM

Focus: Three Comments to Suissa Article

 

[COMMENTS] In the order they were written:

 

1) Lily Steiner (lilily@earthlink.net):

 

David SHAME ON YOU! Do you not understand who ‘We the people’ are? Do you have so much disdain for people that do not agree with you? Do you have to be right to the exclusion of the Democratic process? Is your ego so huge that just because you have taken a vendetta to Trump anyone that does not also see it is wrong? Has it ever occurred to you that you may be, perhaps, just a little wrong yourself? Do you care nothing about a free and democratic election? Can you not even entertain that you are one of the elitists causing the problems. Do you not understand that the SILENT MAJORITY, who do not usually even vote, have taken the time and trouble to leave their chairs and couches and go out and show their support for a candidate they can finally support?

 
I don’t know how we have survived almost 8 years of the current leadership, and in fact we have not yet, as he has deeply and widely embedded Islamists into every department and level of government in a way, only someone like Trump can weed out.

 
But you of all people David, the wonderful father that you are, MUST understand that to raise a family as good and supportive and respectful and dedicated to a father like Trump, especially after 2 failed marriages, that type of father, that type of man cannot even come close to your close minded description of his character. The Trump kids, who grew up in wealth and privilege and the pain of 2 divorces, are exemplary citizens, ALL OF THEM, and totally support and respect their father. Do you in any way question that as their foundation and nurturer he could be anything but a man of solid values and integrity? You’ve raised many kids, you know the challenges, and how they turned out could only be a testament to his moral fiber.

 
All men have egos, and Trumps main challenge is that he is not a smooth charismatic speaker. So yes, you elitists will jump on media extracted sound bites that paint him so negatively, but take the time to see the substance of his ‘straight from the hip, unfiltered’ comments and you will not see lines of insulted workers of all backgrounds waiting to add their stories of the despicable boss they had, you will find stories and comments of a man that treated everyone fairly and equally.

 
When the media tried to show how awful he was to women, you had those same women come out and support him, showing the media, the folks you are supporting, to be totally biased with a lack of integrity to the truth. Now you, David, join them too!

 

You have created the most shameful column you have ever written. You besmirched the good character of a man who doesn’t need the power or aggravation or home or airplane that come with this office. Trump is running because he really does want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT again. With all the votes on the ground and support of all the We The People, not acknowledging him as the Republican Candidate shows you to have a TOTAL DISREGARD for the democracy we enjoy. I respect your disapproval of Trump, even though it does diminish you in my eyes, but I respect your right to your opinion. Your suggestion that we overthrow the democratic process because you feel you are smarter than the rest of us, is just plain ego on your part, far more vulgar than anything you describe in Trump.

 

2) Paul Schnee (sch290@hotmail.com):

 

During the last 12 months nobody has won any money betting against Donald Trump. As I understand it the gravamen of Mr. Suissa’s argument is that some method should be found to deny the will of the primary voters either before or at the Republican convention in July. This suggestion would have been more beneficially applied to Obama’s candidacy in 2008. Had it been successful the likelihood of a populist Trump candidacy, which seems to horrify Mr. Suissa even more than the 8 mirthless, poisonous and treacherous years of Obama’s presidency, would have been remote. Denying the will of the people is a conceit of the political elite as Prime Minister Cameron just discovered on Thursday.

 

Those conservatives and Republicans who will not support Donald Trump because they imagine themselves to be too politically pure, too morally superior, too well educated and too sophisticated because they consider Trump to be an unprincipled quasi-liberal vulgarian are committing a costly form of sanctimony which will hand over America and the Supreme Court to a political party which has abandoned Israel, supports the hate-group, Black Lives Matter, and whose members have moved so far to the left they would be unable to see the center if they were standing on top of a ladder looking through a pair of binoculars.

 

3) Ari Bussel (bussel@me.com):

 

Dear David,

 

Good writing evokes emotions and transfers the piece from the writer to the reader.

 

I am not going to say you are misguided, wrong or otherwise delusional.  I have read at least two lengthy comments to that effect.  Quite on the contrary, I immensely enjoyed, as always, reading your column.  The comments show that people read your column and that what you write affects them, sufficiently to drive them to engage in a discussion with you and/or with the piece.

 

I wonder, and you might too, of all the very many columns you have written this year, is that the single most “profound” or “comment-enticing” one.  Time will tell.  And your readers may think differently than you (each holds a different column of a writer as “most memorable”).

 

I would say, though, that had your “Dump Trump” been published a few weeks ago, it would have been timely, suggestive and thought-provoking.  As it is now, it is stale, outdated and plain sour.

 

The current timing is similar to all those Britons who, moments after the final Brexit results were announced, started calling for another vote, and will likely demand another and another … until their vote is the one that prevails!  Two million, three million and the count is rising.  But how many of them voted to separate in the first place?

 

You admit that “Love him or hate him, the man has earned his delegates.”  You do not question the process; you simply do not like the results. Thus, you call to tailor new regulations, just so that we can change what is truly rightfully earned and fait accompli.

 

You care not that you undermine the integrity of the process, and that is exactly how Democrats today behave; as if they are the owners of the process, and the process must therefore fit itself to them.

 

You advocate somewhat similar to Ehud Barak’s call, at present time in Israel, for a “rebellion” or an “uprising” or anything of the sort, simply because he does not like the current government and/or because he is desperate seeing the “Left,” of which he is a part, evaporating to non-existence.  [I wonder what would happen if I were to use the same about the sitting President of the United States.  “Ousting” or “Rising Against” or anything similar, and I might find myself – in a best case scenario – in a jail cell, keys thrown to oblivion.]

 

You further suggest to Republican leaders to take the long view, the high road and to set an example.  You say, inter alia:

 

Republican leaders must say to America, “We have decided that Donald Trump is so far out of line that we can’t in good conscience support him. Even if we have to bear the wrath of his supporters, divide our party and forfeit the election, we will encourage delegates to go in another direction.”

 

Since when did party leaders – Democrats or Republicans – do the right thing?  They care about one thing, and one thing only – perpetuating the status quo:  immense power and wealth, corruption and politics all concentrated in their hands.

 

Out of necessity – like the Israelites at the Red Sea, with the Egyptians fast approaching – Republican leaders finally understood the demand of (everyday) Republicans – we, the (simple) people, those who have a single, legitimate vote – and internalized the call to stop “Washington Politics.”  Further they understood (not so much by choice, but by sheer and overwhelming reality) that if the party is to survive, they must unite and reflect the people; not the comforts of the status quo where they rule and “let the people be damned!”  Thus you call for them to do the right thing; they have already done so.

 

In Biblical times, Nachshon jumped into the raging waters.  In current day Washingtonian politics, it was the Speaker of the House who was last remaining at the edge of the cliff, refusing to jump to save the institution, the party and himself.  He had no choice but to finally relent as well.

 

Once Paul Ryan announced he will vote together the entire party behind its presumptive nominee, the last fort of opposition to the New Reality has fallen.  Had your column appeared until that moment, it would be a wonderful, thought-provoking, reality-questioning piece.

 

But as it was published after that tipping point, it is nothing but a lamentation of a sore loser; and I know you are not.

 

Imagine a similar column published moments after the Berlin Wall was toppled on 11/9/1989 or at the time President Reagan said, on 6/12/1987, “Tear Down This Wall!”  Timing – all the difference in the world.

 

DJT might be a narcissist, but what is new under the sun?  Are we not completing eight years under another similar narcissist (“it is my way, and only my way!”), simply from the other side of the aisle?  The difference is that with one we had to undergo eight long years of subjugating everything we hold dear (from the Constitution, tumbled under his feet, to the medical care we used to get to anything else that was “life in America” before BHO) to him, and you seem to be afraid of the next four years of “narcissism break[ing] loose.”

 

Anything – either Clinton or Trump – will be better than what we have endured thus far.  As a Republican all my life, and for the sake of America, I hope it will be DJT.  My vote will be for him.

 

Always,

 

Ari Bussel

bussel@me.com

 

+++

From the Jewish Journal

 

Republicans must dump Trump

By David Suissa

 

 Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore-Flickr

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr

 

It’s bad enough when a narcissist is so full of himself that even a defeat can’t humble him. Win or lose, he’s always right. Imagine, then, what happens when an extreme narcissist starts to win, and wins big. All narcissism breaks loose. He goes from being drunk on his greatness to being totally plastered.

 

This is what is happening to Donald Trump.

 

He has passed the drunken phase. His stunning victories in the Republican primaries, his endless media exposure and his raucous rallies have become like cocaine-heroin speedballs to the part of his brain that triggers his ego. Blinded by self-love, he has doubled down on his offensiveness and recklessness.

 

His critics inside the Republican party say, “What did you expect? This is who Trump is.” But I think it’s worse than that.

 

What we’re seeing now is Trump becoming more and more Trumpish, a man so hypnotized by his own success that he can’t see himself unraveling (with a 70 percent disapproval rating). He can hire and fire advisers, but it won’t help, because he can’t help himself.

 

If Trump pulls off a miracle and wins the White House, we will have an unhinged leader of the free world, intoxicated by his greatness, prone to even more recklessness.

 

But even if he loses, which is more likely, we will still have to brave another few months of Trumpian bile. Come November, there won’t be anyone left to offend. We will all need a National Detox Day.

 

Among the many fallouts of this cringe-inducing year is how Trump’s crassness has overshadowed some genuine grievances among his working-class voters. Many of them feel, rightfully, that the economic recovery has left them behind and the Washington establishment has ignored them.

 

Some Trump voters also are tired of seeing their country getting ripped off, whether by a badly run war in Iraq that squandered $3 trillion, a badly negotiated nuclear deal that empowered a terror-sponsoring Iran, or unfair trade agreements that have cost American jobs.

 

The great GOP tragedy of 2016 is that it was a vulgar and divisive circus clown who figured out how to tap into many of those grievances.

 

In the beginning, many of us saw the Trump phenomenon as a harmless and amusing sideshow. Now, we see it is contaminating a party — and a nation.

 

That’s why Republicans must do everything they can to dump the Trumpster.

 

This is no longer about partisan politics; it’s about defending the honor of our country. As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said recently, “There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

 

With their convention only a month away, for Republicans that time is now. Trump’s beyond-the-pale behavior justifies looking for every possible angle in the playbook to allow delegates to nominate another candidate.

 

Yes, it’ll be messy, but as John Fund writes in National Review Online, there are expert opinions in support of freeing up the delegates:

 

“Curly Haugland, a member of both the Republican National Committee and the convention’s Rules Committee, has co-authored with Sean Parnell a persuasive mini-book, ‘Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate,’ to make the case that delegates to the GOP convention are free to vote their conscience.”

 

Denying Trump the nomination is a long shot, to be sure. Love him or hate him, the man has earned his delegates. Still, this is one of those torturous moments when one imperative overrides another. If there is a legitimate way to replace Trump with another candidate, it must be tried.

 

Republican leaders must say to America, “We have decided that Donald Trump is so far out of line that we can’t in good conscience support him. Even if we have to bear the wrath of his supporters, divide our party and forfeit the election, we will encourage delegates to go in another direction.”

 

Politicians and operatives inside the GOP who have mocked and criticized Trump but are nevertheless supporting him are simply proving his point about the cronyism of the political class. The only way they can salvage their integrity is to throw themselves at the mercy of principle and work to replace him.

 

This would be good not only for America — in the long run, it also would be good for the Republican Party.

 

“There will always be other Trumps until Republicans decide to make defeating Trumpism a cause, even if that means short-term losses,” former Democratic speechwriter Jon Favreau writes on The Ringer website. “If the party does not become more welcoming and inclusive, young people and other voters will tune it out.”

 

Donald Trump is too narcissistic to learn from his experience, either in victory or in failure. The Republican Party cannot afford to become like him.

 

To read this article online, visit jewishjournal.com.

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

As you might relate, there were some typos in the comments – something we all do when placing comments ourselves. I used spellcheck to edit.

 

One Liberal Justice Away


Dem Ass gun to American Uncle Sam

Justin Smith writes of the dangers to America’s Constitutional Republic as created by our Founding Fathers, if Obama successfully places another Left Wing Activist Justice on the Supreme Court. This is an awesome Editorial!

 

JRH 3/10/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

One Liberal Justice Away

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/10/2016 12:00 PM

 

“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”  – Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

 

So much more than the Office of the U.S. President is at stake in the November election. The direction of a partisan U.S. Supreme Court is also a consideration, since the next president will quite likely select two or three of the next Justices; and if the Progressive Democrats and their unconstitutional and anti-constitution agenda control the Court, the future for our children will be damaged and liberty in America will be in grave danger.

 

Too many Justices from years past to the present have abandoned objective reason and impartial arbitration concerning our fundamental law, and they have consistently produced rulings that were distorted by their own personal feelings and prejudices, especially in cases seen as representing some aspect of “social justice.” This has resulted in the Supreme Court overstepping its own Constitutional authority by creating new de facto law through its rulings. And, when the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot read the same law in the same way on the same day from the same Constitution and U.S. legal code, splitting along party lines in almost every case, we no longer have a court of law — we have an elitist body politic.

 

For thirty years, Justice Antonin Scalia opposed the judicial activists of the Supreme Court, until his death in February. He rigorously defended the U.S. Constitution in all areas, irrespective of the issue. His strong adherence to the fundamental law of the Constitution stood in stark contrast to those who viewed the Constitution as an infinitely malleable “living document”, and he opposed all who attempted to turn the latest left wing fads into the law of the land.

 

In past years, Democrats have called on Supreme Court nominees to accept Roe v. Wade as a super-precedent more fundamental than the Constitution itself. But in a 2009 interview, Scalia suggested that state constitutional amendments may take precedence to prevent abortions, effectively overruling Roe v. Wade; he also noted that nothing in the Constitution, especially in light of the 9th and 10th Amendments, specifically delegates the power to fund abortions to the federal government. So under what constitutional authority does the federal government mandate abortion policies over the states?

 

To paraphrase Senator Ted Cruz, America is one liberal justice away from having Her religious liberties erased and from the Supreme Court forcing us to violate our religious conscience upon pain of a fine or imprisonment. America is one liberal justice away from open abortion on demand — one liberal justice away from the Ten Commandments being erased from the countryside and from every government building wherever they are found — one liberal justice away from our Second Amendment being eradicated and one liberal justice away from U.S. law becoming subservient to The Hague and international law. [Bold Italic emphasis is Blog Editor’s]

 

Under the Leftist agenda, homosexual “marriage” is sanctioned by unelected judges, the innocent unborn can be murdered, gun ownership is only for the government, healthcare penalties to coerce behavior are taxes, religious liberty only protects private belief and the president can rewrite U.S. law at will.

 

In this political environment, the Republicans are well within their rights to reject all of Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court, since Obama treats jurisprudence as a weapon of political warfare. In 2006 and well before the midterm elections, Obama, then a Senator, filibustered Justice Samuel Alito and demanded a 60-vote threshold; and, since his election in 2008, Obama has brazenly abused executive power and ignored Congress, in his race to embed his hard-left agenda within our American culture and force a fundamental transformation away from our Founding Principles.

 

Let’s not forget that then-Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and 21 colleagues joined Obama against Alito. Let’s not forget Obama’s explanation that the Constitution requires “an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology and record”, as he criticized Alito as “somebody who is contrary to core American values.”

 

Nobody is more “contrary to core American values” than Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama nominee, who advocated for the acceptance of the integration of some aspects of Sharia law into the U.S. jurisprudence in 2006 when she was the Dean of the Harvard School of Law.

 

Does anyone really believe that Justice Sotomayor exemplifies “core American values”?

 

The Democrats are two-faced, when it concerns the Supreme Court, they fight dirty and they fight for keeps. They have two standards for judicial appointments – one for themselves and another for Republicans, but now they are crying “foul.”

 

So what if the Democrat controlled Senate under Pres. Ronald Reagan confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy on February 3,1988? They only did so after excoriating and brutally impugning the honorable reputations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg.

 

Obsessed with identity politics and social justice, make no mistake, the brawlers in the Democratic Party, such as Senators Schumer and Reid, would be blocking Republican nominations, if the situation was reversed. In fact, they did filibuster one of Bush’s federal court nominees, Miguel Estrada, in 2003, simply because they thought he might make it to the Supreme Court one day. And more significantly, Obama voted against John Robert’s nomination because of Robert’s “overarching political philosophy.”

 

It is also worth noting that despite the Democrats’ insistence that Justice Scalia’s seat must be filled quickly, the Court is designed to function with very few Justices, if necessary, and it has throughout history. In 1789 there were only six Justices, but a quorum of four was required to do the Court’s business. In 1801 there were five Justices; ten existed in 1863 and Court held seven in 1866: There is no such thing as a rule of nine.

 

Think of all the narrow 5-4 decisions in recent history that upheld fundamental rights such as religious liberty, freedom of speech and the Second Amendment, and one will see this 2016 election to be an historic juncture of the utmost importance to America. Therefore, U.S. Senators have the obligation to the American people to prevent the confirmation of any liberal justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, who would use the Court like a continuing constitutional convention. They are obligated to defend the U.S. Constitution against all who would dismiss our rule of law in favor of their own arbitrary, arrogant and authoritarian rule of men, and this requires U.S. Senators to reject any of Obama’s radical judicial activists for a lifetime on the Supreme Court: Senators have the duty to advise and consent, not to say “yes.”

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets are the Editor’s.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

 

Losing One’s Soul


Trump Snake Oil Salesman toon

Yesterday I posted “I’ll Vote for any Three of These GOP Candidates” listing in order of my preferences Cruz, Rubio and Trump. In that post I shared my displeasure that Romney castigated Trump. Romney’s accusations are some of the very things that could be spoken about himself at least in reference to any Conservative bona fides.

 

Then I finally got to Justin Smith’s criticism of Donald which is a very scathing analysis of Trump that makes out to be just as crooked as Hillary. Admittedly I am having to rethink my preference of Trump as third in a choice of preferences.

 

My concern now is if Cruz or Rubio manage to stall Trump from getting the requisite number of delegates to gain the GOP nomination how will the Republican proceed and will Trump honor his pledge to support any GOP candidate ultimately nominated if it is not himself?

 

I suspect Trump would run a Third Party or Independent candidacy for the Presidency in which he would ultimately lose. The bad news: Hillary becomes President by default (unless the miracle of an honest justice system indicts her). If a miraculous indictment occurs against Hillary it is my belief a very tight 3-way race for POTUS will occur that will probably end up in the House deciding the winner since the days of Thomas Jefferson.

 

Read Justin’s very convincing article and see if he effectively throws a monkey into your pro-Trump or perhaps he confirms what you already know.

 

JRH 3/4/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Losing One’s Soul

Safeguard the Ark of Liberty

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: March 3, 2016 12:27 PM

 

Donald Trump and those who vote for him bring to mind the verse “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul,” because in their anger at the Republican establishment, they are exalting emotion over reason. In the process, they have bastardized the spirit of America based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and they have embraced a near nihilistic form of dangerous populism, that seeks change for the sake of change and offers only a lateral transition from Obama’s disastrous policies to an equally bad Trump administration. They have lost their moral clarity and hold survival and power as their only remaining “values.”

 

If Trump achieves the 1237 delegate votes necessary to secure the GOP nomination for the presidency, the GOP will have surrendered to the cultural, political and spiritual malaise that currently grips much of the nation. Nominating Trump ensures that big government will grow bigger and the culture of crony-capitalism (i.e. fascism), so prevalent in the U.S. today, will continue into the future. It also guarantees that Hillary Clinton will be the next U.S. President.

 

Does America really want such a person for Her leader and President?

 

Trump –

 

*who sides with Obama on limiting one’s First Amendment Right on the internet  

*who believes it is just fine for him to take your private property for his own enrichment, using an unConstitutional “ruling” by activist Supreme Court Justice David Souter

*who essentially stole tens of thousands of dollars from hard working Americans seeking a better life, through the fraudulent claims of Trump University, no matter that he now attempts to distance himself by blaming his underlings and business partners; and, he used the same slogans for Trump University as he uses in his campaign: “It’s going to be great. You’re going to win so much.”

 

Aside from these things, anyone who truly believes Donald Trump doesn’t have any outstanding IOUs dancing in the wind really hasn’t fully examined his record, and they are ignorant of his use of government at every level and his receipt of special considerations in quid pro quo fashion. Just look at the tax abatements he received in New York throughout his career and his corrupt (criminal?) association with “Fat Tony” Salerno and S&A Construction, and then, listen to his own words concerning his bribery of sitting U.S. Senators [National Review].

 

[Blog Editor: The Trump connection to Salerno and other mobsters is a bit of a concern that I evidently missed. The association makes Trump look as dirty as Hillary Clinton. Check this out:

 

“There have been multiple media reports about Donald’s business dealings with the mob, with the Mafia,” Cruz said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Maybe his taxes show those business dealings are a lot more extensive than has been reported.”

 

Host Chuck Todd called the accusation, “openly speculative” and asked, “Do you have any facts to support that Donald Trump has mob ties?” Cruz cited reports from ABC News and CNN.

 

“For example,” said Cruz, “S&A Construction, which was owned by ‘Fat Tony’ Salerno, who is a mobster who is in jail. It is owned by two of the major New York crime families.” As CNN reported in July, the cement company S&A Construction was used in the construction of the Trump Plaza condos in Manhattan.

 

S&A was controlled by Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family and Paul Castellano, head of the Gambino family.  In fact, as the New York Times reported, Salerno’s final trial was for a “scheme to allocate contracts and obtain payoffs for constructing the concrete superstructures of 16 Manhattan buildings,” including Trump Plaza. Cruz did have one fact wrong. Salerno died in prison in 1992. (Ted Cruz Raises Issue of Donald Trump’s Mob Connections; By AL PERROTTA; The Stream; 3/1/16)]

 

Now there is a looming bombshell in a 2012 interview with Trump from the New York Times. It suggests that Trump has never intended to be as tough on immigration as he is currently telling the American conservatives.

 

No one can claim to be a Constitutional Conservative and still cast their vote for Trump, which makes it incredibly stunning to see the likes of Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) endorse him; but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s move was a predictable self-serving piece of political hypocrisy. In each of these cases, one must wondered what was offered _Cabinet position? _ the Vice-Presidency?

 

Treating total recklessness as a virtue, the masses in this populist movement do not seem to care for the truth behind Trump. They do not care that he has no idea how to govern, how our Constitution and our system works or even the slightest understanding of true conservatism. They don’t care that Trump doesn’t really stand for anything and he doesn’t have any defining principle for his political beliefs. They are mesmerized by Trump’s repetition of “Trust me, it’s going to be great.”

 

“Believe me, Americans are going to win again” is an empty slogan, and Trump never reveals just how he plans to “Make America Great Again.” These are similar to statements by third world dictators to a beleaguered populace. “We’re going to make this nation great again” are the very words used by Ferdinand Marcos prior to acquiring power in the Philippines in the 1950s and declaring martial law soon afterwards.

 

Trump reminds me somewhat of Good Ol’ Adolph and his populist message/ propaganda that took Germany by storm in the 1930s. Everyone thought they were electing a strong supporter of the democratic German Republic, but instead they received a dictator.

 

How does this make sense, when the American people have a true American Patriot _ Senator Ted Cruz _ waiting in the wings to continue to put his entire being into the fight to save this nation?

 

Senator Ted Cruz is a Constitutional Conservative on every one of the top most important issues, and he has concrete plans to repeal Obamacare and reform healthcare, reduce the national debt and increase economic growth, rebuild the military and keep America safe by sealing our borders and defeating our enemies, and to protect innocent life and our religious liberties.

 

Cruz went to D.C. as the “anti-establishment” candidate, and upon his arrival, he did just what his constituents asked of him. He immediately laid out a plan to repeal and/or defund Obamacare. He even filibustered Obamacare. But his efforts were blocked by cowards throughout the House and Senate, such as Boehner, Ryan and McConnell. It should also be noted that Cruz has fought and won nine separate cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that defended the 2nd Amendment and Religious Liberty, States’ Rights and the entire U.S. Constitution.

 

Despite Lt Governor Ron Ramsey’s (R-TN) off-handed remark that “Trump is bringing new issues to the forefront and new voters to the party”, let’s not forget Trump’s early support for the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill for illegal aliens. The record plainly shows that Sen. Ted Cruz was well versed and one of the first out front on illegal immigration, border security and national defense, long before Trump had his first clue. As for the “new voters”, one should rightly question the cognitive analytical skills of anyone voting for Trump _ a fascist.

 

And Hell must be frozen over, because I completely agree with Senator Lindsey Graham, who stated on Super Tuesday that “he’s [Trump] a demagogue with solutions that won’t work. Clinton will beat him like a drum”. I also will not vote for Trump under any circumstance.

 

With this in mind, March 15th and the winner-take-all states like Ohio and Florida will prove critical for the future of America. Even though Trump currently leads Cruz in delegates 315 to 216, there is time for those opposing Trump to coalesce behind Cruz and elect a man who truly has America’s best interest at heart. Short of this, the “not Trump” group better be working towards an open brokered convention.

 

Many exceptional Americans are determined not to give way to Donald Trump and his disdain for the Original Intent of our Founders, regarding the U.S. Constitution and Individual Liberty. They understand the necessity of stopping the dangerous celebrated fool, Donald Trump, and his corrupt practices and statist solutions, which will inflict great damage on our country. They are heartened by Ted Cruz, a brilliant and authentic conservative, who is prepared to uphold the Presidential Oath and defend the Constitution and America. And praying for the rest of Conservative America’s assistance, they feel the incumbent moral obligation this election has placed upon them, to make good the redemption of our republic and America: Nothing less rests on the outcome than safeguarding the Ark of Liberty — America’s Divine Charge.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Montana Who are YOU Voting for in the U.S. Senate?


Steve Daines vs. Amanda Curtis

Steve Daines vs. Amanda Curtis

 

Failed Dem Policies of Obama or Future Prosperity of a Conservative?

 

John R. Houk

© August 26, 2014

 

The Big Sky State of Montana has been a mixed bag in the U.S.’s political spectrum. Since 2012 Montana voted Republican for President, has a Democrat Governor, two Dem Party Senators and since 2012 Montana’s lone Representative in U.S. House of Representatives is Steve Daines a Republican.

 

Dem Senator John Walsh has been exposed as a plagiarist which became scandalous enough that he opted out of a Senate reelection campaign in 2014. Which makes him a has-been.

 

Guess who became the GOP choice to face Walsh in 2014? Yup, Rep. Steve Daines Montana’s only House member in the U.S. Congress. The Montana Dems have selected State Senator (Montana State Congress) to face Steve Daines in the 2014 election cycle.

 

Daines is so Conservative that the Dems aren’t campaigning against what he votes, but rather the Dems are doing what they doo-doo best. Which is to say the Dem strategy is an absolute negative campaign of character smears much like something you might read from the Montana Leftist blog called Intelligent Discontent:

 

“Why Doesn’t Steve Daines Know Anything?”

 

The title is fairly self-explanatory but if you are a Leftie you might enjoy how Don Pogreba explains deceitfully votes Conservative with committing to that vote in his home Montana State. Typically the Dems are counting on the Montana voters being duped while calling them stupid for not realizing a Conservative will vote Conservative in House voting roll calls.

 

A Helena Independent Record (IR) posted this about Steve Daines on March 24 of this year:

 

Montana’s U.S. Rep. Steve Daines — a Republican running this year for the U.S. Senate — has fashioned a very conservative voting record in his first 15 months on the job, independent analyses show.

 

He opposed Democratic President Barack Obama 87 percent of the time during 2013, according to Congressional Quarterly, a nonpartisan publication that covers Congress.

 

In addition, a 30-year-old rating system devised by two prominent political scientists casts Daines as the most conservative House member in Montana history.

 

The Montana Democratic Party, which is working to defeat Daines in this year’s election, also has called Daines “reckless” and extreme, pointing primarily to his 2013 support for House Republican budget proposals and his opposition to two key bipartisan budget deals in 2013 and early this year.

 

Daines, in an interview last week, said he prefers to describe his voting record as … YOU CAN READ THE REST (Daines’ voting record: Pragmatic or very conservative? By Mike Dennison; IR; 3/24/14 6:00 am)

 

What a surprising description of the Conservative GOP Haines, right? God bless him for voting against Obama 87% of the time and God bless him for being the most Conservative Representative in Montana history.

 

In contrast the candidate the Dems chose to replace plagiarist Senator Walsh on the 2014 ballot is State Senator Amanda Curtis (D – Dist. 76). Walsh is so Left Wing that you can tell she sees herself in the mold of the Socialist-in-Chief President Barack Hussein Obama. Curtis is using the same kind of rhetoric that Obama used in 2008 to first fool American voters. Here’s a 2008 flashback on Obama:

 

VIDEO: Barack Obama’s small town guns and religion comments

 

Posted by potus08blog

Uploaded on Apr 11, 2008

 

Barack’s comments that are generating all of the controversy: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” (Bold Text Mine)

 

TeaParty.org put together a short montage of Amanda Curtis vlog videos wearing her Leftist rhetoric on her head like tinfoil to block out the failed policies of Obama’s Left Wing Administration:

 

VIDEO: Meet Amanda Curtis

 

Posted by MontanaRepublicans

Published: Aug 16, 2014

 

Just like her political hero Obama she mocks guns, religion and the traditional family base and acts like opposing Socialistic concepts is the epitome of an American moron.

 

So Montana voters do you want to stick with the guy who voted 87% of the time against the failed Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama while a House member or do you want to a Left Winger into the Senate to perpetuate those failed Obama policies for six years as a Senator? The choice will be yours on that first Tuesday in November 2014.

 

The TeaParty.org article is actually a reprint of a Breitbart.com article. Since I found the article via a TeaParty.org email I am going to cross post from that website. I am going to omit the video since I actually posted that above.

 

JRH 8/26/14

Please Support NCCR

***********************************

VIDEO: Democrat Sen. Candidate Mocks Gun Owners, Christianity, the Bible, and the Family

 

TeaParty.org Exclusive

August 23, 2014 11:12 am

Email Alert Sent: 8/25/2014 4:50 PM

TeaParty.org

 

(Breitbart) – Montana State Senator Amanda Curtis (D-76 Dist.) is running for U.S. Senate and will no doubt be trying to run away from her past statements mocking guns, Christianity, the Bible, and the family.

 

She just stepped into the race in place of John Walsh, the Democrat candidate who had to step down amid a plagiarism scandal.

 

On August 22 the Tea Party Express posted a compilation of Curtis’s statements that include laughing at gun owners who stress the importance of having a gun for self-defense. She does this by telling stories about walking home “in the dark, through parking lots and everything,” without a gun. She looks into the camera, feigning surprise, and says, “I’m glad I made it.”

 

She then references someone who brought up “the God almighty, and natural law, and the Bible, and biblical this and biblical that, and Christianity and fundamental Christianity.” After saying these things she looks into the camera and grimaces, like the mention of these things caused her pain.

 

She then makes fun of a fellow legislator who said “the most basic form of government in Montana is the family.” She grimaced again and said, “Really?”

 

Of course, her mockery of the family is also another mockery of Christianity, which puts forth the family as the first authority children learn to obey.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/22/Montana-US-Sen-Candidate-Mocks-Gun-Owners-Christianity-The-Bible-And-The-Family

 

_____________________________

Montana Who are YOU Voting for in the U.S. Senate?

John R. Houk

© August 26, 2014

______________________________

VIDEO: Democrat Sen. Candidate Mocks Gun Owners, Christianity, the Bible, and the Family

 

SPECIAL: Join the Tea Party REVOLUTION! The Obama Regime must be dismantled!

 

About TeaParty.org

 

The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America. From our founding, the Tea Party represents the voice of the true owners of the United States: WE THE PEOPLE.

 

TeaParty.org was created on: September 2nd, 2004. Many claim to be the founders of this movement; however, it was the brave souls of the men and women in 1773, known today as the Boston Tea Party, who dared to defy the greatest military might on earth. We are the beneficiaries of their courage.

 

The Tea Party includes those who possess a strong belief in the foundational Judeo-Christian values embedded in our great founding documents. We believe the responsibility of our beloved nation is etched upon the hearts of true American Patriots from every race, religion, national origin, and walk of life sharing a common belief in the values which made and keep our beloved nation great. This belief led to the creation of the modern-day Tea Party.

 

Our millions of members consist of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents who identify with the premises set forth by the U.S. Constitution and we are striking a chord and ringing true with the American Spirit.

 

We stand by the Constitution as inherently conservative. We serve as a beacon to the masses that have lost their way, a light illuminating the path to the original intentions of our Founding Fathers. We must raise a choir of voices declaring America must stand on the values which made us great. Only then … READ THE REST

 

Overcome Political Realism with Grassroots Conservatism


Face of Obama - Impeach Him

IMPEACH OBAMA!

 

John R. Houk

© July 22, 2017

 

Brent Smith has written an article that is correctly critical of Speaker John Boehner and the GOP Establishment leadership for brushing off calls for President Barack Hussein Obama’s impeachment.

 

Too many Republicans from both Conservatives and GOP Establishment withstand calls for impeachment out of what I can call political realism. The thinking runs something like this: Even if the House of Representatives currently under a GOP majority serves articles of impeachment with a simple majority, the Constitution states that two-thirds of the members of the Senate are needed to convict and remove from Office. (See Standards for Impeachment) That 2/3 today is sixty Senators. Realists believe even with a majority win in the 2014 election it would be doubtful that there would be 60 Republican Senators. And it is a decent guess that if a miracle occurs and the Senate session beginning after the 2014 reaches at least 60 Senators, that are probably enough RINOs to thwart a conviction of President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

Despite the logical arguments of the political Realists I say PHOOEY!

 

Admittedly I felt Barack Obama had a Socialist Transformative agenda to end the Constitutional America as we know it which includes throwing Biblical Christian values into irrelevance from the beginning of the rise of his popularity in the 2008 election cycle. NONETHELESS, for we Americans that want to see accountability from an elected official rather than see how political realism plays out. Beginning impeachment proceedings NOW we the people will see just who in the House stands for accountability and who stands for political realism. The 2014 election cycle will then give constituents an actual voice about their Representative in the House. If constituents vote for a candidate or incumbent that maintains the political realist status quo, then they deserve the future Left Wing despotism that will gain deeper roots resulting from Obama transformatism (See Time [Leftist Vision], Education Brainwashing, OBAMA FORCED A CHANGE NOT WANTED and The Godless Left And Social Justice).

 

If a majority of the House votes to impeach the President, at this point it would probably be the 2015 Senate installed in January that decides to keep or boot President Barack Hussein Obama out of Office. I am praying if a GOP led Senate fails to remove Obama from Office, then more voters will wake-up to the dysfunction of reality politics by insuring a Conservative GOP election of President and a super majority in both the House and Senate in 2016. Impeachment proceedings will make this the true political reality. In this case there is a difference between verified reality and predictive realism.

 

Ben Smith’s article calling for Obama’s impeachment is a growing Conservative grassroots movement to counter the squeamishness of political realism.

 

JRH 7/22/14 (Hat Tip: MinutemenNews.com)

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

No to Impeachment – Yes to Lawsuit

 

By Ben (Smith) the Common Constitutionalist

July 21, 2014

The Common Constitutionalist

 

Recently, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, little Johnny Boehner, proclaimed that, “Every member of Congress swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So did Pres. Obama. But too often over the past five years, the president has circumvented the American people and their elected representatives through executive action, changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from the forcing statutes he is sworn to uphold – at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the American people to stop him.”

 

“That’s why, later this month, we will bring legislation to the House floor that would authorize the House of Representatives to file suit in an effort to compel president Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country.”

 

Boehner’s statement was in direct response to Obama’s “So Sue Me” statement to Congress. In other words, Obama will do whatever he darn well pleases, and if you don’t like it – tough toenails for you.

 

He didn’t, nor does anyone else using that phrase, mean to actually sue him. Maybe he did.

 

Boehner says he’s disappointed in “the president’s flippant dismissal of the Constitution we are both sworn to defend…”

 

He’s disappointed? That’s it? Not outraged at the president who is breaking the law on a regular basis, and consistently acting anti-constitutionally?

 

There is a method of redress you know, Johnny. It’s written right in that Constitution you swore to defend but probably haven’t read. It’s called impeachment and I guarantee if this were Bush thumbing his nose at a Democrat Congress, articles would have been drawn up long ago – and rightly so. I would certainly support it, whoever is in office.

 

No official is above the Constitution. No – not even Ronaldus Magnus (Ronald Reagan).

 

So why file a lawsuit? Why not impeachment? A few reasons, in my opinion.

 

First, little Johnny would feel the need to garner “public support” for impeachment which is not required and wholly unnecessary. But we all know he is too cowardly to actually “do his job” without first getting approval. There was almost no support to impeach Nixon before the process began – neither public nor congressional.

 

Second: assuming Congress has legal “standing” or authority in the eyes of the court to even file a lawsuit – it would drag on potentially for years and accomplish exactly nothing – except for spineless Republicans to claim their at least “trying” to stop this “lawless” president. It’s great cover for the lily livered establishment, and they know it.

 

I haven’t heard this theory, but I’ll just throw it out there. Finally and most importantly is the built-in excuse of no longer having to answer any questions.

 

Let me put it a better way. You know – whenever there is a major court case or major lawsuit being litigated – what do the parties always say when asked about the case? “I’m sorry, I can’t discuss that, I can’t comment on an ongoing case. I’d like to comment – but I can’t.”

 

Wow! What better way for both sides to just give the finger to all of us demanding that something be done about Obama.

 

Reporter: “Mr. Boehner – what are you going to do to stop the president’s open border lawlessness?” Boehner: I’m sorry, but that’s part of an ongoing lawsuit. You know I can’t discuss it. Sure wish I could though.”

 

Voilà! Problem solved for the establishment! No more questions – no more scrutiny!

 

Also, once a lawsuit is filed, Congress can wash its hands of it. Their attorneys, being well paid by us rubes, will handle the heavy lifting, as it were. Spineless congressional leaders get a free pass – they don’t have to do anything or say anything.

 

It’s a win-win!

____________________________

Overcome Political Realism with Grassroots Conservatism

John R. Houk

© July 22, 2017

___________________________

No to Impeachment – Yes to Lawsuit

 

About Page

 

The Common Constitutionalist is unique in that it offers not just conservative commentary and analysis from myself and others, but a blend of politics, history, arts, science and humor. Who ever said conservatives aren’t funny? Yeah, I know…most people. He is a contributing writer for Political Outcast and Godfather Politics.

 

Take a look at some of the more popular political articles such as: Newt is Not a Conservative or Manifesto, Then and Now. Perhaps a history article such as: The Great Depression.

 

Although I’m not a scientist, an artist, nor a photographer, all these topics interest me. Here are a few of the most viewed examples: The Hulk Protein, Rare Photos, Rolling Stones, Don’t Try This at Home

 

© 2014 The Common Constitutionalist

Palin vs. Boehner – Who do YOU Agree With?


Sarah Palin - John Boehner

John R. Houk

© July 10, 2014

 

Yesterday I posted about and whole heartedly agreed with Sarah Palin’s July 8 Breitbart Op-Ed column calling for President Barack Hussein Obama’s impeachment. Today I learned Palin stood by her Op-Ed by appearing on Hannity defending her impeachment call against Obama.

 

VIDEO: Sean Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin – Time to Impeach Obama Now! – Fox News – July 8, 2014

 

 

Published by SpecialStuffMix

Published on Jul 8, 2014

 

July 8, 2014 – (Fox News) – Sean Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin – Time to Impeach Obama Now! —— Sarah Palin joined Sean Hannity tonight to explain why she’s now calling for President Obama’s impeachment; namely, she’s tired of the president’s lawlessness and use of executive power, and the Republicans can’t just “bring a lawsuit to a gunfight,” they need to “halt an imperial presidency.”

Palin argued that Obama is becoming an imperial president who’s “lying to the American people” that needs to be reined in. She dismissed the idea this would be a losing issue for Republicans and, in fact, argued that the impeachment of the president is a bipartisan issue that plenty of Democrats should be able to find agreement with.

Hannity wondered if the GOP would seriously take this up. Palin said if they don’t have the “cojones,” they should, and declared that any person who cares about the safety and security of the nation needs to get behind filing articles of impeachment because “enough is enough.”

 

Of course you know (if you read my yesterday’s post) I concur with Sarah Palin – “enough is enough”.

 

I was not surprised to learn that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) curtly responded to Palin’s Hannity appearance – “I disagree”.

 

VIDEO: John Boehner – ” I Disagree on Impeachment for Obama ” – Reply to Sarah Palin Republicans – 7-9-14

 

 

Published by NewsLoadNow

Published on July 9, 2014

 

7-9-14 – (John Boehner on IMPEACH OBAMA Stance by Republicans and Sarah Palin) – Yesterday, when a reporter asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if he agrees with Sarah Palin’s call to impeach President Barack Obama, he politely responded, “I always respect other people’s opinions,” before saying he has no plans to make such a proposal. When House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was asked the same question at his press conference this morning, his response was a bit more terse to say the least. He appeared to lose interest in the question as it was being asked, saying curtly, “I disagree,” while scanning the assembled press to see who he could call on next.

When the reporter continued to ask about House Republicans who also think Obama should be impeached, his expression grew more stern and he repeated, “I disagree.”

Last month, when Boehner confirmed his plans to sue President Obama over his use of executive actions, the speaker insisted, “This is not about impeachment, this is about his faithfully executing the laws of our country.”

 

 

Boehner’s flippant answer in a disdainful manner is at least one of the reasons Tea Party Conservatives desire him to be replaced as the lead Republican making him Speaker of the House. It is also a classic example of Republicans labeled RINOs and of Conservative Republicans more concerned about political position than moving the USA back to the very Conservative principles enumerated in the Republican Party Platform (2012). I suspect when Palin was referring to a Party Platform it was to point two – We The People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government. Here are the subsections of this platform point:

 

o   A Restoration of Constitutional Order: Congress and the Executive

 

o   Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary

 

o   A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

 

o   Living Within Our Means: A Constitutional Budget

 

o   Federalism and The Tenth Amendment

 

o   The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College

 

o   Voter Integrity to Ensure Honest Elections

 

o   The First Amendment: The Foresight of Our Founders to Protect Religious Freedom

 

o   The First Amendment: Speech that is Protected

 

o   The Second Amendment: Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

o   The Fourth Amendment: Liberty and Privacy

 

o   The Fifth Amendment: Protecting Private Property

 

o   The Ninth Amendment: Affirming the People’s Rights

 

o   The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

 

o   Respect for Our Flag: Symbol of the Constitution

 

o   American Sovereignty in U.S. Courts

 

 

Now I can understand why President Closet-Communist thumbs his nose at these platform headings, BUT I cannot accept that the current most powerful person in the Republican Party does not think Obama has flagrantly abused these Constitutional stands. When Speaker Boehner proclaims publically at a press conference, “I disagree,” he also thumbing his nose at the GOP Party Platform. I have to wonder – does this mean Boehner intends to abandon Conservative principles in supporting the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution?

 

Boehner is only the tip of the iceberg of Republicans lacking cojones to act on what needs to be done to protect this nation from Obama’s agenda of transforming America from the Founding Father’s constitutional vision to a top-down Leftist utopian government. The writer that goes by the pseudonym AllahPundit at Hot Air brings up some great observations about Republicans that are bona fide Conservatives yet play politics above the needs of WE THE PEOPLE:

 

… He [Boehner] wants to do something bold to show conservatives that he’s resisting Obama’s power grabs, but not so bold that it’ll blow up in the GOP’s face in November. The lawsuit is the perfect gesture. It gives him an excuse to rail against executive overreach publicly while booting the disposition of the matter to the courts. If they rule against him, it’s the judiciary’s fault, not his. And if it takes a year or more for the case to wend its way up to the Supreme Court, even better. It’s off his plate, which is what’s important. (Said Palin to Hannity last night, “You don’t bring a lawsuit to a gunfight, and there’s no room for lawyers on our front lines.”) For him to turn around and agree with Palin on impeachment after all that would be bizarre. Why pursue a circuitous legal route to rein in Obama if he’s prepared to try to remove him from office entirely?

 

It’s not just Boehner who’s running away from impeachment either. In purple-state Iowa, GOP Senate nominee Joni Ernst — who’s been endorsed by Palin — carefully explained to Yahoo News yesterday that she didn’t really say she wanted to impeach Obama the last time she said she wanted to impeach Obama.

 

Republican Iowa U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst attempted Tuesday night to walk back statements made at a January event in which she said President Barack Obama had “become a dictator” who should be “removed from office” or face “impeachment.”…

 

“To be clear, I have not seen any evidence that the President should be impeached,” the statement …

 

… Could Boehner’s impeachment-avoidance strategy end up backfiring if he loses his lawsuit? Imagine a federal judge rules that the House’s dispute with O over executive power is a political question that should either be decided by the people at the polls or by the people’s representatives through their Article I powers — which, of course, includes impeachment. The courts will have essentially punted this issue back to Boehner and told him, a la Erick Erickson, to man up and accept the political risk of trying to remove the president if he’s allegedly so troubled by executive overreach. What’s Boehner’s move then? Use the power of the purse to choke off funding for Obama’s priorities and quietly ignore impeachment altogether, right?

 

… (Boehner: I disagree with Palin about impeaching Obama; By AllahPundit; Hot Air; 7/9/14 12:41 PM)

 

This indicates that among RINOs and Conservatives in the Republican Party, their power structure has become political rather than considering their constituents or this American Republic designed to accommodate the American people in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Hannity had asked Palin toward the end of his interview if Palin was considering leaving the GOP. She answered carefully and semi-cryptically to the effect she had no intention to leave the Republican Party but if the Party leaves her what choice would she have. Since the Republican debacle of Election 2012 I have sensed the Republican Party has left true Conservatives. What choice should we make?

 

JRH 7/10/14

Please Support NCCR

%d bloggers like this: