Sadly, these people are wrong. Rand Paul, like his father, is a leftist libertarian. His leftist brand of libertarianism is evident on many issues: deep defense cuts, supporting the cretinous “Balanced Budget Amendment”, supporting violations of states’ rights Paul’s pet issues, opposing action against Iran.

But on no issue is it more visible than on illegal immigration. Rand Paul supports a full-throated amnesty for illegal aliens (without calling it that way; he deceptively calls it “a pathway to citizenship”), bilingualism, and open borders, and opposes employment verification, including the very effective E-Verify Program.

Employers, including Big Business, are lobbying hard for amnesty and against E-Verify, because they love to hire illegal aliens; they can pay them much less than Americans and avoid federal and state employment laws.

But doesn’t Rand Paul realise that amnesty and bilingualism will only lead to bigger, more costly government? Don’t his supporters realize that?

Don’t they and their idol Rand Paul realize that amnesty (or “pathway to citizenship”, or whatever you want to call it) is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with limited Constitutional government (not to mention that it rewards lawbreaking, and a limited government – Constitutional or otherwise – cannot exist if the law is not obeyed)?

Don’t they and Rand Paul understand that amnesty will create 12-20 million new Democratic voters who will send the political Right (not just the GOP) and all conservatives to the political graveyard and give the Democrats a permanent, unbeatable majority?

As Ann Coulter rightly says, as soon as the nation starts to resemble California demographically, it will also resemble California politically.

To see what amnesty would mean politically, just look at California, where whites are now only 40% of the population – a “majority minority” state. Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has transformed California into such a liberal state that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Taxes are going in only one direction, the state is on the verge of bankruptcy, and there’s no one left to pay the bill anymore, because businesses are fleeing Commiefornia en masse.

Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is permanently lost to the GOP. The Dems control the governorship and have 2/3 majorities in the state legislature.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty is passed. The two major parties, as Ann Coulter rightly says, will be the Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Democratic Party and the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party.

Contrary to the popular canard that “Hispanics are natural conservatives/Republicans” and that “the Hispanic vote is winnable for the GOP”, they’re not and it’s not. The converse is the truth: Hispanics are natural liberals.

They are less likely than anyone but Jews to attend religious services and to oppose abortion and gay marriage. They are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock themselves, be poor, be dependent on the federal government for survival, commit crime, and go to prison. They depend on an entire cornucopia of federal programs to survive – from cradle to grave.

As Pat Buchanan points out, most Hispanic households are led by single mothers who, if they work, have no tax liability (due to the high tax-free treshold and the EITC), and if they don’t work, they receive welfare rolls and 99 weeks of unemployment checks. For food, she gets foodstamps and her children receive 2-3 “free” meals at school.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

Her children are educated for “free” K-12 and can apply for Pell Grants and student loans.

Why would these people vote for a party that promises to cut taxes they don’t pay, but pledges to cut government dependency programs they do “benefit” from and use? Doesn’t self-interest dictate voting for the party that pledges to let them keep using these programs and, if anything, promises them more “free” giveaways?

The vast majority of Hispanics are government dependents (i.e. ideal Democratic voters). Republicans will never beat the Democrats at the giveaway offering game.

Have you ever wondered, Dear Readers, why most Latin American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.) have socialist governments? Answer: Because most of their citizens are socialists.

Most Americans don’t know that decades ago, the Democrats began implementing their plan to create an unbeatable Democratic majority by importing millions of immigrants from the Third World while making it harder (nigh impossible) for well-educated, highly-skilled Europeans to immigrate to the US. This plan is close to being completed. Amnesty #2 would be the final step – and the final nail in the GOP’s coffin.

The Democrats did not, and do not, want to change their ideology or their policies; instead, they’ve decided to change the voters, and they’ve done so and continue to do so.

Someone will say, “But in 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote!” Yes, he did, but that’s not a great result. If repeated at future elections and if amnesty is passed, the GOP will still be doomed. Let’s do simple math.

Assuming that there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US, let’s say 44% of these people vote Republican once naturalized, and “only” 56% vote Democratic. That is, let’s assume they’ll vote Republican in George W. Bush numbers.

OK, here’s the math:

44%*12 million = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56%*12 million = 6.72 mn new Dem voters

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

So on net, the Dems would gain 1.44 mn new voters.

Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a GOP that were not suicidally inclined support such a policy?

Those who support amnesty, including Rand Paul, need to ask themselves only this question:

If there was ANY chance – even the slightest chance – that amnesty could help Republicans in ANY way whatsoever, do you think the Democrats would’ve supported it?

The answer is obvious. It’s a resounding “no”.

Rand Paul must not be allowed to win a GOP presidential or vice presidential nomination under any circumstances whatsoever. Nominating Rand Paul for President or Vice President would be an electoral suicide for the GOP and would be an utter rejection of all conservative principles the GOP has ever stood for.

Leaders of TEA Party Organizations,

I have seen the different groups in the TEA Party family all working independently, or so it seems to me, on projects that are all very important.  I know that one of the draws of the TEA Party is independence but the time has come that all of you must unite to fight the common enemy, an out of control government.  Both political parties are unresponsive to the citizens and only getting worse.  There are good conservatives in Congress but they are being beaten down one at a time by a machine that destroys anyone who refuses to bow to the “party loyalty first” crowd and their behind-the-scenes handlers.

The Republican Party “leadership” is in league with the most radical Democrats who have ever been in power.  We are on the verge of losing our freedom because we continue to support those who have turned their backs on us time and again.  Republicans have lied to us so many times I have lost track of the number.  They have “investigated” time and gain yet have given us nothing but hand-wringing and excuses for the evil deeds of politicians of both parties.  It is time to take drastic measures.

There are good men and women in Congress fighting for We the People but they need us behind them in a united front.  TEA Party minded people make up much of the party but the Republican Party establishment is moving more towards pandering mode and ignoring us.

After the 2010 mid-term elections John Boehner, who sat in the Speaker’s chair because of us, said the TEA Party played a very minor role in the record setting landslide elections at the federal, state, and local levels.  After the “moderate candidate” disaster in 2012 the same John Boehner blamed the TEA Party for the losses.  John McCain and Lindsey Graham, among others, continually attack those who speak for us, and the McConnell/Boehner “quick, run up the white flag we will fight another day” way of doing things is unacceptable yet we accept it.  We are the enemy to them, not their allies.  They use us like Democrats use the welfare state.  We can do better.

I wrote a blog article that I hope the leadership of all of these different organizations will read.  Conservative America has the numbers in population to make a wholesale change.  All we need is leadership; people who will set their egos aside and lead us to where our founders intended us to be, using the system they designed.  As I wrote, you have the people with you.  We have in the past and continue to show we are here.  There are prominent conservatives in the media, the political realm, and Hollywood who have immense fortunes that could help fund a political party, and there are many good, conservative legislators to govern.

Many wealthy founding fathers died penniless but they had forged the greatest nation ever established. We don’t have to begin from scratch to build a nation; all we have to do is once again live by their design.  How much better could we honor those who have died to establish and preserve this Republic?

We the People are ready, we are willing, and we are able.  All we need is for those of you organizing things, and those with the financial means to finance it, to get together and forge the type of future envisioned by our founders so many years ago.  It can be done and you can do it, with the support of the 67% of We the People who call themselves TEA Party folks.

I mentioned this in passing to Steve Eichler of TEA Party.Org .  His response was “a TEA Party Congress? Interesting”.  I like the sound of a TEA Party Congress.  It represents the vision and the work of our founders.  We have allowed our nation to come under the control of despots who see themselves as ruling rather than governing.  The only way to change it is to garner the support of the 67% who identify with the TEA Party and focus it on an Independent party.

The demographics say that 40% of people identify as Republicans, 40% as Democrats, and 20% as Independents.  Even with my lowly high school education I can figure out that no two of the groups can make up 67%.  That means TEA Party people must come from all three demographic groups.  I know that there are enough disaffected Democrat voters to give us the support we need to stop the tyranny being foisted upon us by both political parties.

Divided we are a minority in both parties but united we can overcome both parties and stop the evil despotism that is destroying the very fabric of our nation.  We the People need your help to accomplish this goal.  Without leadership there is no hope for liberty to survive.  With leadership we can once again make the United States of America the greatest nation on earth.

God granted us a great nation that has fallen away from his way; and with that falling away has come decline, despair, and tyranny.  Together we can bring our nation back to the principles of God that are the basis of our past success as a nation. I don’t speak of a theological nation but rather a restoration of the values established by the founders.  The question is; Can you do it?  Will you do it?  Can all of you, will all off you,  join forces to defeat the tyranny that is tearing our nation apart and destroying the futures of our children and grandchildren?

I am with you, and you will find the majority of We the People will follow you if you will unite and truly lead as our founders led.  Duty, Honor, Country, “with a firm reliance on Divine Providence” is the answer to our national and personal woes.  I pledge to you my support, my loyalty to your cause as long as it is the cause of constitutional liberty, my sacred honor, and my life.  I have no fortune to pledge but I pledge what I can offer if you will accept the mantle of leadership and work to restore the nation so many have died to establish and preserve.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

April 16, 2013

But while paulbots attack America’s entire foreign and defense policy, free traders “only” object to any criticism of America’s trade rivals and to any attempt to protect America’s industrial base from unfair competition (dumping).

A case in point is a recent post published on the pro-free-trade Heritage Foundation’s blog, the Foundry, where the author, Brian Riley, writes:

“A recent news report was headlined: “Lawmakers, business groups balk at trade deal with protectionist Japan.” A more accurate title would have been: “Protectionist U.S. lawmakers, special-interest groups balk at trade deal with Japan.””

Why did he say so? Because, horror of horrors,

“Over 40 Members of Congress recently wrote to President Obama to express concern about allowing Japan to join Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations.”

Oh-my-gosh! Not allowing Japan to join TPP negotiations? What a horrible crime!

Sen. Stabenow of Michigan says:

“Opening U.S. markets to more Japanese products while Japan keeps its market closed to American automakers simply does not make sense.”

Oh-my-gosh! What a heresy against the Free Trade Is Good For America Dogma!

The blogpost, titled Trade: Japan Protectionist?, ridiculously claims that the US is more protectionist than Nippon and that protectionism is bad for the country which practices it:

“There’s no doubt that Japan maintains too many self-destructive trade barriers. But Japan is not much different from the United States in this regard. In 2011, Japan’s imports were 16.1 percent as large as its economy, similar to the level of import penetration in the United States (17.8 percent). And things are getting better. The size of imports relative to Japan’s economy has increased by 60 percent during the past 10 years.”

Only an economically illiterate person would claim that. Protectionist trade barriers are, as we shall see below, good for the country that maintains them, not “self-destructive”. Secondly, America’s trade market, with the exception of a few types of goods, is completely open, free of charge, without any but the most miniscule tariffs, to foreign products. The US is, quite literally, allowing Japan and other countries to dump its market with their goods and to kill the US industry.

As for imports as a portion of GDP, Riley’s own statistics, quoted above, show that the US imports significantly more (as a share of its economy and in absolute numbers alike) than Japan: 17.8% vs Japan’s 16%.

And the US has been running huge trade deficits – the largest of any country in world history – continously since the early 1990s: $10 trillion since Daddy Bush’s times. America’s trade deficit last year alone was $745 bn per the CIA World Factbook. With Japan, the US has been running consecutive, large trade deficits for decades, and last year’s US trade deficit with Nippon was the largest ever between the two countries.

Moreover, to increase exports to America still further, Prime Minister Abe has recently convinced the Bank of Japan to devalue the yen by 20%.

Look for America’s trade deficit with Japan to increase.

Now, why are imports bad? Why are exports good? Why are trade deficits a problem and trade surpluses a good thing?

Because exports mean selling things to other people (abroad), which means people have to be hired to produce these things, which means jobs are created.

Imports, OTOH, mean that foreigners are hired to produce things that you buy, and thus, jobs are created abroad, not in the US. American companies actually lose jobs as a result of imports, because the things imported to the US would otherwise be made by American companies employing American workers.

As a historian, I can attest that no country has ever become an economic power by indulging in free trade policies.

Every country that ever became an economic power became one by protecting and nurturing its industry: England under the Acts of Navigation and into the 19th century, France under Colbert and Napoleon, Germany from the Customs Union to the end of WW1, the US from 1861 to the 1960s, postwar Japan, China today.

Protectionism (i.e. economic nationalism) is the policy of ascendant economic powers; free trade, the policy of descendant ones, which put consumption before savings,  finance over manufacturing, and today before tomorrow.

The US became the world’s preeminent economic power during the 18th and early 19th century because it followed Hamiltonian preceipts: Manufacturing, not finance, is the economic muscle of the nation. Exports are preferrable to imports. Trade surpluses are better than trade deficits. To grow the economy and provide well-paying jobs to the populace, America’s own industry must be protected and nurtured.

But in the late 20th century, American politicians of both parties, goaded by the business lobby and the greedy CEOs of America’s largest corporations, dumped Hamiltonian preceipts, stopped protecting the US industrial base, and opened the floodgates of America’s domestic market to foreign-made goods, free of charge.

The greedy CEOs of America’s largest corporations – the so-called outsourcers – always desiring to grow their salaries, closed factories in America, opened factories abroad, produced goods in foreign countries, and brought them to the US, free of charge. There were no longer any significant tariffs as a price to pay for the privilege of entering America’s domestic market.

Meanwhile, their paid pipers – pro-free-trade think-tanks like Heritage, CATO, and the Mercatus Center, and university professors living in their ivory towers – brainwashed the remaining politicians whom money couldn’t corrupt and many ordinary Americans into thinking that “free trade” – opening America’s domestic market free of charge to all foreign products – was good for America and was a free lunch.

But it was not, and is not, a free lunch. In fact, the Europeans, the Asians, the Mexicans, the Canadians, and others are eating Uncle Sam’s lunch.

Consider:

• Before the US began indulging in free trade policies, it always had a trade surplus. Since 1971, however, it has had a trade deficit (usually a huge one) every single year.
• Real wages and the median income have been stagnant since the early 1970s. The median class is vanishing.
• Since 2000 alone, the US has lost over 6 million well-paying manufacturing jobs and over 55,000 factories, replaced with nothing, not with the “creative destruction” fiction that free traders claim. You can’t replace something with nothing.
• Before NAFTA was ratified, the US had an annual trade surplus with Mexico. Now it has an annual trade deficit of over $60 bn per year with that country.
• Under the KORUS free trade agreement, ratified in early 2012, America’s trade deficit with South Korea TRIPLED in April 2012 alone, the first full month under the agreement. Over the entire year 2012, it increased by 25%.
• The US has an annual trade deficit with European countries as well: Ireland ($25 bn in 2012), Italy ($20 bn in 2012), and Germany ($60 bn in 2012) to name just a few.
• America’s trade deficit with Japan last year was the largest ever with that country, at $76 bn.
• America’s trade deficit with China last year was the largest ever between any two countries in human history, at $315 bn. Let me repeat that: America’s trade deficit with China in 2012 was not just the largest with that country, or the largest with any country in US history, but the largest trade deficit between ANY two countries in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, from the times of the Cromagnons to today.
• The US, which once produced everything it (and the rest of the world) needed, is now dependent on foreign countries for everything, from basic stuff to high-tech products. It is the latter that are actually America’s biggest imports from China; America’s largest exports to China are… soybeans.

Such is the economic disaster that free trade has brought on America.

Free trade has also been a political disaster for Republicans, who have been full accomplices in, if not the chief perpetrators of, the free trade scam perpetrated against the American people.

From 1860 to 1924, the Republican Party, then known as “the Party of Protection”, put 12 presidents in the White House, versus only 2 for the Dems.

From 1860 to 1988, the GOP put 16 presidents in the White House, versus only 7 for the Dems.

But beginning in 1992, after free-traders permanently hijacked the GOP, the Party lost 4 of the 6 presidential elections held since that time, and has lost the popular vote in each one except that of 2004 (and even that one was won narrowly).

Might that have anything to do with the fact that America’s industrial base has been all but wiped out, the middle class has been gutted, and blue-collar workers have been betrayed by the GOP and driven straight into the arms of the Democrats?

America’s blue collar workers – the so-called “Reagan Democrats”, who delivered the White House to Ronald Reagan (and earlier, to Richard Nixon) twice, have returned to the party of their fathers. And they’re not coming back to the GOP.

So free trade has been a disaster for America economically and for the Republican Party politically.

There is NO reason to pursue a free trade policy. There is every reason to pursue a protectionist one.

Because, as Pat Buchanan rightly says, protectionism is the policy of ascendant economic powers, while free trade is the policy of descendant ones.

Below, in conjunction with the previous posts, is the first section of the statement of the Political Stance of this initiative.

Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC)

POLITICAL STANCE

2.0    Economic Liberty

All members of society should have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. The Free Market Capitalism, a free and competitive market, allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others within such a market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society within a Free Market Capitalism system.

2.1    Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor restitution to the rightful owners, where possible to return it in like condition as when acquired.

2.2    Environment

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources.  Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, yet environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior, rather than the use of coercive force of government.

2.3    Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production, other than what is rightfully owned by government in an open competitive marketplace.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists endorse government officials encouraging the development of renewable energy sources, without regulatory enforcement, requirement, or funding thereof.

2.4    Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose any requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors.

Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.

Governments at all levels should operate within available revenue, accrued from consumption tax rates approved by the people.

Whereas all federal spending originates in the House of Representatives the budget development process of the Government United States of America should be modified as follows:

1. The budget shall be a two-year budget coinciding with the 18 months of the current congress, begin on the first July of said congress. (I.e. the 112^th Congress runs from January 3, 2011-January 3, 2013.  The 112^th Congress would adopt a budget encompassing two years beginning July 1, 2011.)
2. All funding for federal programs shall be by a general consumption tax, or special program revenue fee-for-service.
3. Once an initial consumption tax rate has been established by Congress, not to exceed 17%, any increase in the rate must be approved by the people at the same time as congressional elections, and by fifty-one percent (51%) of the states.
4. A general government reserve must be established and maintained at a rate equivalent to 1/3rd of the approved consumption tax rate. (I.e. if the approved tax rate is 17%, than the reserve rate would be 5.7 %.).  [If the budget were 2 trillion dollars, required reserves would be 114 billion dollars].

2.5    Money and Financial Markets

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money the legal tender of the United States.

2.6    Monopolies and Corporations

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free market capitalism.

2.7    Labor Markets

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government-fostered forced retirement.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employers should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all forms of unionized government employment, unless specifically approved by a vote of the people of the respective jurisdiction. (I.e. local or state government shall maintain the authority to submit to its respective citizens the right to decide whether such government shall be obligated to unionize any or all of its employees.)

2.8    Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

2.9    Health Care

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

2.10    Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private system.

Individuals have responsibility, accountability and liberty to manage their own lives.  However, we have learned from experience that most individuals, unaware of what future consequences of their life choices may bring, will fail to plan for adequate resources to care for themselves during time of incapacity.  Further, although liberty is individual, care for one another is a natural part of life’s experience. Governments in all ages have sought to control and provide for individuals during periods of incapacity.   In light of this reality it is proper for governments to require that all members of society prepare for their own eventual incapacity through a self-administered plan for future self-sufficiency.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists directly oppose any government regulation, control, or management of such self-care programs beyond requiring individuals to select such a plan and adhere to it.

The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

In 2010, after 234 years, the United States Supreme Court finally recognized the Constitution’s Second Amendment as the law intended for citizens to protect themselves.  Despite the high court ruling, if the Left gets it’s way, and Progressives are determined, not only will Americans lose their rights to keep and bear arms, left-wing leaders and anti-gun lobbyist will have the Second Amendment shot to death.

Americans fought for decades in order to get the high court to concede to the Second Amendment and allow states to exercise individual rights to bear arms. Second Amendment proponents met with opposition and enacted bills making firearms purchases difficult, enforcing strict waiting periods and background checks.

Opponents asserted such regulations must be enforced because:

…handguns are the principal instrumentality responsible for the increase in homicides in the country.

Second Amendment supporters disagree, affirming the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms is, and always has been, constitutionally intended as a clearly written fundamental right: The right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, as well as violent criminals.

After decades fighting and challenging progressive legislation, the United States Supreme Court faced two infringement rights cases: one in particular– McDONALD ET AL, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL –was the kicker. McDonald forced the court to translate Second Amendment specifics.  In doing so, the court deemed the Second Amendment lawful unto citizens, providing individual rights for owning and carrying concealed firearms.

What is The Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment does not in any way specify withholding firearm rights from the people, nor is the Amendment vague and difficult to understand. It’s specific in its wording: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Furthermore, look at Jefferson’s original Virginia draft: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”

Jefferson intended that all Americans have rights to protect themselves with firearms.

The final framed and signed Constitution has the double clause: 1) “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,”  2) “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In other words, the Second Amendment is not written for hunters and target shooting, nor is it solely for law enforcement and the National Guard, or Diane Feinstein’s right to carry a sidearm while demanding everyone else use pepper spray and rape whistles.

Certainly states must never leave citizens unprotected, but all too often citizens are unable to wait for law enforcement to save them from rapists and murderers. Citizens must be able to defend themselves in such cases. The Second Amendment provides such protection.

Furthermore, the right to own firearms should never be violated or contravened by state or federal government.

British legal scholar St. George Tucker backed up Madison’s words in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.  Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.  In England, the people have been disarmed… under the specious pretext of preserving…the landed aristocracy…their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants…interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun…for the destruction of game…

Founder William Rawle also backed up Madison and Tucker, stating:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.  Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Justice Story, a Madison appointee noted:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

The Founders were unambiguous.  They knew what they enacted into law.  They purposely granted privileges and rights protecting individual persons.  “Well regulated” is specific for legal-bound lawmen, but the amendment does not take the right to bear arms out of the citizens hands and dispense that birthright-by-Constitution over to law enforcement. Yet, despite a very well thought-out, framed and signed law, anti-gun lobbyists are seeking every avenue to ban guns completely—except to violent criminals whose rights must never be infringed.

Guilt By Criminal Abuse

The double clause has been at the gun debate forefront for decades with legislators, activists, and justices’ arguing the Second Amendment does not hold for civilians, claiming guns kill more people, and if guns are banned there will be less violent gun crimes.

The Second Amendment does not sit well with opponents.  Challengers insist the Amendment does not apply to citizens, only military and police. And Brady Bill supporters proclaim America the most violent country on earth because of the Second Amendment:

…the United  States citizens kill each other with firearms at a rate of 14.8 per hundred thousand.

This statement speaks of criminals who bypass laws, purchasing weapons illegally no matter what bills the U.S. has in place.

Research proves gun deaths occur mainly due to criminal activity via illegal guns sales, not abiding by the Second Amendment.

False data and the Brady Bill have made it difficult for obedient citizens to purchase firearms.

Don’t Count You Bullets Before They’re Allowed to be Loaded

It took 234 years and the entire twentieth century fighting anti-gun bills for the United States Supreme Court to finally accept and established the Second Amendment as the right of all United States citizens.  Still, the 2010 ruling does not mean individual states, legislators, activists, and governors fighting against firearm ownership will not enforce tougher restrictions on gun purchasing.

Progressives do not concur with the 2010 high court ruling, preferring the Second Amendment be placed before a firing squad.

Anti-gun activists will continue pushing for a nationwide federal ban on all guns, because many legislators, citizens, and President Obama and his anti-gun pushers want United States citizens disarmed.

Below, in conjunction with the previous posts, is the first section of the statement of the Political Stance of this initiative.

Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC)

POLITICAL STANCE

1.0    Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves, and, to accept and be accountability for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

1.1    Expression and Communication

The Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

• Favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.
• Oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religious organization.  Recent legislation and ruling of the courts has been to restrict the use of government provided facilities and activities for the display of religious symbols.  Since government ought to act in absolute equity toward all citizens under its domain Constitutional Traditionalists find such restriction to be incorrect.  Governments ought to make available on an equitable basis opportunity for all religious organizations to present their symbolism.

Constitutional Traditionalists support in totality the Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution of the United State.  These amendments should be interpreted by government to provide the broadest expanse of liberty to the people, and consequently the greatest level of permissible authority to those levels of government most closely associated with the people.  Governments should act first in the general interest of the citizenry, yet never in the interest of special interests groups, or organizations.

1.2    Personal Privacy

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists specifically support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes.

Whereas, some individuals will be employed to administer the affairs of the greater society, and thus in position of public scrutiny, any personal privacy while operating as a public servant ought to be completely subject to such public scrutiny.

The excessive use of prescription and recreational drugs may lead an individual to unknowingly and uncontrollably violate the rights and safety of another.  Legal means may be used to protect society against such unintended consequences, however, ought not to be exercised to prevent the use thereof. (i.e.  The excessive use of alcohol may lead an individual to be incapable of safely operating a vehicle.  Law enforcement may legitimately protect society from the operation of such a vehicle, but ought not prevent the individual from consuming alcohol or apply punishment for its consumption).

1.3    Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, or immigration. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Marriage has devolved from two threads of social interaction.  One thread is within the religious realm.  The alternate thread is within the political realm.  It is no longer practical that both realms dictate regulations regarding marriages.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support the idea that marriages for political alliances have become outmoded.  Therefore, marriages and their performances should be solely a matter of religious function.  Further, legal benefit and restriction associated with marriage ought to be dissolved, continuing with no strength under law.

1.4    Abortion

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists specifically believe that life begins at conception, acknowledging that any such human life, cannot by natural means, become anything other than a living human being which ultimately has and possesses all the natural liberties which are afforded to all human beings.  As such any action to deprive such living human being, following conception, of life is not an exercise of liberty but rather an act of violence, subject to accountability for such violence as though inflicted on a fully sentient living human being.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists believe that government should be kept out of the matter with respect to the health of the mother and cases where rape and incest are undeniable factors, leaving the question in those cases to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5    Duty to Protect the Life of a Minor

Through the freedom to act independently persons of the age of capability procreate.  Children of such procreation should be considered minor until such age as they are able to be fully capable of sustaining their own lives.  Parents have a Duty to Protect the Life of a Minor.  Parents that fail to provide such protections are violating the minor’s ability to ultimately be at liberty to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists believe current ages of “majority” are appropriate.

 1.6    Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of physical harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law in specific circumstances.

Whereas, the accused are entitled to a speedy trial, the victims of wrongdoing are also entitled to a speedy trial.  All trials other than for capital punishment ought to be tried and concluded within one year of indictment.  All capital punishment trials should be tried and concluded within eighteen months of indictment.  These time-frames should include all appeals.

1.7   Self-Defense

The legitimate use of force is in personal defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression (violence). This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all laws at any level of government restricting the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

Below, in conjunction with the previous post, is a statement of principles for this initiative.

Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC)

Statement of Principles

It is essential to defend the rights of the individual over the expanding authority of government to establish preemptive regulation in most forms.

Individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the mutual right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments exist to provide specifically, but they ought not to violate the rights of any individual, as follows:

Protect:

(1) The right to life — Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists supports the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;

(2) The right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all attempts by government to make laws encouraging or restricting the establishment of any religious organization, or prohibiting the free exercise of the doctrines thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the publication of views (print or digital); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of  petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances; or by imposing censorship in any form upon an individual or organization expressing non-violent opposition to government acts; and

(3) The right to property — accordingly Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

1. Oppose all government interference with private ownership of capital and property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and
2. Oppose any form of government regulation of the financial management of private ownership of capital and property, and
3. Support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, ought not violate individual rights, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.  People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives, liberty, and property for the benefit or choices of others.  They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders.  The most effective economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is Free Market Capitalism.

Free Market Capitalism is essential for the best ordered society.  Free Market Capitalism consists of absolute ownership and control of all resources of production being held in the hands of private individuals and groups of individuals in contract.

There were worse things in Early America than being a black slave. It’s probably surprising to learn that being an Irish slave was one of them. Early Irish settlers also filled the same service roles in American society, then, as claimed by illegal Hispanics today.

Ireland had no defense forces until about 1913 so its people were captured and enslaved by many nations. They endured more oppression than American blacks and suffered living conditions not unlike Jews of the Holocaust. But harboring grudges against ghosts of heritages past was not a mainstay for the Irish. They had more important things to do.

We know so little of the Irish’s torturous American history because of their impressive will to live beyond victimizations rather than living in them. America’s Irish are prime examples of sheer personal determination turning adversity into stepping stones to a better life. Their devout faith in God undoubtedly served them well, then and now.

As a small-town Protestant from the Midwest my knowledge of St. Patrick’s Day was limited to coloring shamrocks spun from school mimeograph machines; the once-a-year reprieve for pinching classmates if they hadn’t worn green; and images of leprechauns lounging alongside that illusive pot of gold at the end of a just as illusive rainbow. It wasn’t until an adult career landed me in New York City that I came to know the holiday and the roles Irish Americans continue to play in our country’s legacy of freedom.

New York City’s parade was my first St. Patrick’s Day parade and it doesn‘t get any better than that. Crowds were so encompassing that even Manhattan’s street traffic came to a halt for the bustling business of glittering green hats, flailing flags, drifting confetti, waving banners, and throngs of the highest-energy people I’ve ever seen come together in an endless string of pubs only then recognized bearing Irish surnames. If you couldn’t legitimately claim an Ireland County as your own by the time day was done you’d adopted one or they’d adopted you. That’s how the Irish roll.

I was a clean slate for learning the true character of Irish Americans from descendants who’d walked off their ships at Ellis Island so many years ago. Their impressively bold dispositions can scantly be found in other of America’s melting pot. The Irish stealthily, dauntlessly and eagerly acclimated to America, setting aside a past much worse than what others today find so ‘inescapable.’ We hear, even today, unending wails of grievous discontents that go back a hundred years or are as recent as the Irish settlers’ once were. The Irish have “been there, seen that, done that.” And what’s glaring from all of that is, who among us even knew?

Who was St. Patrick?

The shamrock is a symbol of St. Patrick’s Day because Patrick used its three cloves to explain God’s trinity. March 17^th is believed to be the date St. Patrick died.

St. Patrick (387-461) was born in Scotland on the cusp of Christian evolution sweeping through the Roman Empire. Patrick’s parents were Roman and lived in Britain where they managed colonies. Ireland was still ruled by Druid pagans when Irish pirates captured Patrick as a young teenager. During his years in pagan captivity Patrick learned Ireland’s language, its people and its customs.

Isolated as a sheep herder Patrick turned to God, spending much of his time in prayer. At age 20 he escaped and returned to his family in Britain but Patrick felt God-called to go back to Ireland and convert its people to Christianity. He spent 40-years teaching and baptizing Ireland’s kings as well as its common folks.

It’s  dangerous for vulnerable women to carry guns, especially if there are rapists in the vicinity!  Frightened women might prevent rapes from happening by shooting rapists, and then where will society be!

Women only need rape whistles to fight off rapists!

The above statement is not hyperbole, it’s the ludicrous thinking of the Left, who claim to champion women’s rights but do not want women protecting themselves against violent attackers, who, more often than not, don’t stop at rape but end the violent crime with bloodshed.

If however, you survive rape and have the nerve to complain that a gun would have stopped your attacker—had you been allowed to carry it on the college campus you attend— you will be attacked in a war against women by leftists who disgustingly assume the ONLY rights women should have to protect  their bodies must be limited ONLY to birth control and abortion.

Case in point: Gun-owning Colorado college student Amanda Collins was raped on the Colorado college campus she attends because the university has a “Gun Free Zone” policy prohibiting students from carrying firearms. Miss Collins’ gun was locked in her car when she was violently assaulted.  When the discussion of rape on campus was brought to a debate at the Colorado Legislature, Colorado Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar had the audacity to tell American women:

There are some gender inequities on college campuses, this is true. And universities have been faced with that situation for a long time, that’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have the whistles, because you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at.

In that case, rape whistles are nothing more than Christmas bells for violent criminals: Every time you hear a rape whistle, another rapist gets his way!

As to Amanda Collins, she had a very good idea of whom she would be shooting: A rapist!

Rape whistles and call boxes did not save Amanda Collins from rape. Had Collins been allowed to carry her locked-in-a-car firearm on campus, she certainly would have had all odds in her favor to ward off the violent attack she must live with for the rest of her life.

Salazar went on to tell women:

And you [women with guns] don’t know if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or you feel like someone’s been following you around, or that you feel like you’re in trouble, or when you may actually not be, but you pop out that gun and you pop a round at somebody…

In other words, women do not have rights to assume that a strange man following them is a rapist or murderer. Also, we women are idiots whenever we claim we are being followed by a stranger or stalked by a crazy ex-husband or ex-boyfriend.

Ladies, it’s simply our over-active female minds telling us violent men exist and seek to physically harm women despite overwhelming rape statistics.

We over-sensitive women should follow Ebony’s  Zerlina Maxwell’s  advice–train rapist to stop raping:

I don’t think that we should be telling women anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there…If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.

Give me a break! The best way to train rapists not to rape is women with firearms.

Of course we women have no right to pull guns on strange men following us, demanding they get the hell away when trying to grab us and push us into cars or drag us into a dark allies to rape us and possibly end that violent crime with murder. No, we must ask thugs: “Would you please hold off your attack for one moment while I retrieve my rape whistle from my purse?”

Perhaps we women should ask the rapist/murder to hold our purses while we retrieve the cell phone to dial 9-11. Hey, I’m sure some rapists are happy to accommodate before the violent act.

As to Salazar’s bogus claims about gun safety, economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime  John Lott writes that U.S. states with conceal and carry laws have had

[L]arge drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.

Leftists could care less about facts; they are more concerned with distorting the truth in order to protect violent criminals against victims.

What is disgusting about this entire women and guns debate is Democrats are the instigators of the “War on Women.” Democrats insist women are not treated equally, they insist women are victims of a male-dominated society, yet Democrats do not want women fighting off violent men.

More proof: A female Democrat further violated Amanda Collins by claiming her gun never would have stopped the rapist and she is better off for having her firearm locked in her car.

Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak told Collins, a skilled martial artist who could not overpower the large brute with her physical skills that:

Statistics are not on your side even if you had had a gun…And chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly uses it against you

A shocked Collins responded to the female legislator saying:

Respectfully Senator, you weren’t there. Had I been carrying a gun, he wouldn’t have known that I had my weapon. I know without a doubt in my mind, at some point I would have been able to stop my attack by using my firearm.

Progressives scream “War on Women” when it comes to birth control not being doled out freely to every woman, yet these government programers don’t want women owning guns, shooting rapists and would-be murderers, and preventing crimes against women.

Rapists have waged war on women for thousands of years, but American Leftists are in fact defending rapists when they tell women that guns won’t protect women, rape whistles will.

Hudak and Salazar’s heartless answers are typical of the anti-gun fascists. I’m surprised they didn’t tell Miss Collins the best thing we women can do is to make sure we receive free birth control, that way if we are raped, we won’t get pregnant after rapists physically and mentally ravage our lives.

I find each pronouncement by Congressman Mullin (R-OK-2) to be more and more enlightening as to his perception of his role in Congress, and ever more perplexing in my perception of his role in Congress.  Mullin is now telling us what John Boehner said to the Republican conference in their meetings, focusing on keeping control of the House in the 2014 election.  Hey, Markwayne, I guess you don’t realize it but We the People of the Oklahoma 2^nd Congressional District didn’t elect you to come back here and tell us what John Boehner says.  We sent you to Washington D. C. (DE Cesspool) to TELL John Boehner what WE SAID!!!!!  I can find Boehner’s lame whining on any social network site, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and any number of television talking head shows; no need for you to come back and act as his spokesman.

This Continuing Resolution song and dance has to stop.  Markwayne stated in this interview  that he “wasn’t going to back himself into a corner” by saying he would vote against the CR if it doesn’t defund Obamacare.  This is the typical “Potomac Two-Step” we have heard from others before him; “don’t take a stand so no one can quote you, and don’t vote for or against anything that can be used against you in an election”.  No change in Washington from the OK-2^nd District.

As it turns out Mullin voted in support of the Continuing Resolution, effectively saying the status quo is acceptable to him.  Spend!! Spend!! Spend!! is the order of the day and Mullin will “go along to get along” with Boehner and the others in his dictatorial cabal.  It seems that keeping promises and honoring his oath of office can wait until “next time”.

Tell me, Markwayne, when is “next time“ going to come?  Boehner has been saying “next time” for more than 2 years now and our country continues running (CR?) down the road to financial ruin.   I guess “being part of the Boehner team” is more important than honoring your oath of office and the promises you made to thousands of voters who believed you and put their confidence in you.  We thought you were a part of OUR TEAM, not Boehner’s team!!!

Mullin mentioned in the interview on KFAQ that he used his time in a recent speech on the floor of the House of Representatives to complain about “partisanship” and to urge everyone to “just get along”.  Isn’t that the same mantra we have heard from Republican establishment types for years now?  More of the “go along to get along” crap from someone I thought would go up there and fight for liberty in my name.

The reason I supported Mullin in the Republican runoff is that I was afraid if his opponent George Faught was elected we would get a mushy yes-man, and I did not want any more of such people in Congress.  I guess I was wrong about Mullin.

In his last appearance in Claremore Mullin stated several times that he “didn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi”.  Just a “heads-up”, Markwayne, neither did Dan Boren in his last term.  But Boren didn’t  vote for John Boehner either.  “Not voting for Nancy Pelosi” isn’t exactly a “get out of jail free card” in my book.  Boren didn’t vote for Pelosi in his last term and he also didn’t vote for the final draft of Obamacare.  He voted for it the first 7 times but not the last one, the one that everyone would see.  We could have kept Boren and nothing would be different in Congress with a Democrat sitting in the OK-2 seat.

Now, take a look at Oklahoma’s 1^st District representative.  Jim Bridenstine doesn’t spend his time complaining about “partisanship”.  He is aligning himself with conservatives, not the establishment, and standing up for We the People.  He also refused to vote for Boehner as Speaker because he promised in his campaign that he wouldn’t.  Bridenstine deposed former RINO John Sullivan in the 2012 primary elections.  Bridenstine also fulfilled one of his promises to voters by voting against the CR  .  He is aligning himself with those who are upholding their oath of office by fighting the political corruption going on in Washington, not bowing to the corruption that is party politics in Congress.

Boehner’s plan is always next time, never now.  I for one am tired of the “next time” mantra from Boehner and his patsy leadership team.  Rep. Jim Bridenstine is standing up for We the People and making a concerted effort to actually change the way things are done in Washington while Mullin whines about finger pointing, and then falls into lock-step with the very people he was sent to stop.

Instead of throwing in with the conservative faction in Congress, as expected by voters, Mullin has chosen to follow the lead of RINO’s Cole, Langford, and Lucas in bowing to John Boehner and his band of traitors.   Republican House Whip Kevin McCarthy is now saying they can get gun control and immigration passed “without support from Republicans”.  If that isn’t in the top ten of most outrageous statements I don’t know what would qualify.  This is the “leadership” Mullin voted for in the most important decision he will ever make in Congress.  Who still believes in the Republican Party???

When Mullin had the chance to change the direction of our government he folded.  His very first vote, the most important vote he will make, was for John Boehner to be Speaker of the House.  Now he whines about how things are being done.  WELL, DUH!!!!  What did you expect Markwayne???? You voted for a man who is known to be a dysfunctional clod and a fan of the white flag approach to fighting for liberty.  You voted for Boehner in spite of many in your district urging you to help remove him.  Now you tell us what Boehner says!!! I don’t care, nor does anyone else care, what Boehner says.  Your job there is to tell Boehner and his henchmen what WE the PEOPLE say.

If Mullin can’t manage to represent WE the People of the 2^nd District any better than this he might as well come back to Broken Arrow and run his business.  We don’t need another “yes-man” in Washington.  I bet we can find someone in Northeastern Oklahoma who has the courage to stand against the Boehner Crime Family and represent the 2^nd Congressional District in the fashion we expect.  I wonder if hiring a campaign consultant he owed just over $60,000 as his chief of staff is a factor in the Mullin approach to “bi-partisanship”.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

March 10, 2013

So I turn to a story by Matt Connolly that makes me optimistic regarding the nation’s future. The headline reads, “Poverty rates plummet for D.C. Asians, Hispanics.” Now that is good news! In spite of a sluggish Obama economy, the American Dream is still available for those willing to work. Upward mobility is still possible. What’s more, less poverty means less need for big government welfare programs, which is always appealing to a small government conservative like myself.

According to Connolly, new census data shows “the percentage of D.C. Hispanics under the poverty line dropped from 20.5 percent in the 2000 census to 14 percent in the 2007 – 2011 average.” And in Maryland’s Prince George’s County the rate “dropped from 14.1 percent to 11.7 percent” in spite of the fact the overall Hispanic population more than doubled in that time period. In Fairfax County, VA and Montgomery County, MD the rate remained “relatively stagnant” but did not get appreciably worse.

Even better, “poverty rates for Asians…dropped across the board” plunging from 22.8 percent to 14 percent. More good news, even though the ingrates aren’t voting for Republicans — the people who keep your taxes low and try to grow the economy.

But then I made the mistake of turning to the WaPost and there I see a headline that complains, “Poverty rates higher for blacks and Hispanics than whites and Asians.” Damn, The Man is still keeping the pigmented people down! So much for my misplaced optimism.

Naturally I want to see where reporter Carol Morello came by this depressing evidence of conservative inhumanity to man. (After all it has to be our fault, since we are not in favor of Obama phones, Sandra Fluke’s rubbers and no–work–required welfare.) But wait, the data came from the exact same census report that Connolly persuaded me was packed with good news!

Instead of congratulating Asians for pulling themselves out of poverty, Morello implies they are now in league with The Man and it looks suspiciously like these calculator jockeys have forgotten all about minority solidarity and are trying to pass for white.

In fact, Morello says absolutely nothing about the reduction in poverty rates that Connolly found so newsworthy, and instead focuses on nationwide poverty rates and then singles out that noted economic basket case D.C.’s Ward 8 for black poverty numbers. Statistically this is like complaining about mortality rates in a mortuary.

So why is Morello such a Debbie Downer? American leftists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media have a pigment problem: There’s a black man in the White House.

It’s becoming increasing difficult to condemn America as a hopelessly racist society when there is this black guy jetting around the country on Air Force One. Since the Marines are saluting him, he can’t be passed off as the butler. And how does one complain about institutional racism when a black guy is in charge of the institution? And how can Virginia be a bigot benighted outpost of the Confederacy when Obama carried the state twice?

A favorite MSM ploy is to pick and choose your statistics, which is the path Morello has chosen. Focusing on persistent black poverty in the abstract implies there is no upward mobility for blacks unless government steps in to make the situation “fair.” Yet black poverty is often a self–inflicted wound as black Prince George’s Councilman Mel Franklin points out in the WaPost “Root” section.

Franklin writes, “In short, no program, either government or nonprofit, can replace the void created by the absence of a good father in a household.

“Annually, as you probably know, over 70 percent of births in the black community nationwide are out of wedlock. Study after study demonstrates (and our common sense tells us) the dramatic effect that this collapse in our family structure has had on education, the economy and criminal justice outcomes for youth, especially the absence of a good father in his son’s household.”

Pointing out the harm black men and women do when they choose to bear children in the absence of marriage is not blaming the victim. You can criticize a suicide whether it’s physical or fiscal. And I compliment Councilman Franklin for pointing out the obvious. But I also note he was not quoted in Morello’s story.

Implying personal responsibility is not method of creating demand for more government. Leftists believe individuals are at the mercy of forces beyond their control, like a termite in a tidal wave, and the only source of help is government. And since leftists dominate the MSM, you get stories like Morello’s.

Which is why I only read the WaPost after I’ve been inoculated by the Examiner and the Washington Times. I suggest my conservative readers do likewise.

I speak to Allen West, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Ted Cruz, Ted Poe, Jason Chaffetz, Mike Lee, Ted Nugent, Glenn Beck, Kelsey Grammer, Bruce Willis, Jon Voight, Donald Trump, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Neil Boortz, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Pastor John Hagee, Pastor James Manning, and many others who just don’t come to mind right now.  You have the money, the name recognition, and the respect of the 67% of We the People who identify as TEA Party members or sympathizers.  I know there must be Democrats who are fed up with the Marxist tilt of their party also.

We have a plethora of people, black, white, red, yellow, and a few polka dotted ones, who are ready and willing to work to elect conservatives but are lacking in leadership. Neither political party represents the majority of, or even a plurality of, American citizens.  Both parties pander to the fringe on the left, the moochers and looters who live their lives with their hands out, and/or the military industrial complex that simply makes money off of war.

Politicians in both parties ignore the two-thirds of We the People who make this nation work.  Corruption is rampant and neither political party has any intention of changing the status quo.  They make their fortunes and live a life of luxury off of the sweat of common people who just want a chance to be successful and become wealthy also.

The founders gave everything they had to forge a nation based on freedom and personal responsibility, with a focus on helping each other when in need. Many of them came out the other side destitute but free.  There are millions of Americans just like myself who have a desire to live free yet find ourselves condemned to voting for the lesser of two evils, evils that are working together behind the scenes to subjugate and enslave us.

The Democrat Party has been full-fledged Marxist for many years now and the Republican Party is running as fast as they can to catch up with them.  John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, John Cornyn, Orin Hatch, and the other RINO’s have not in the past, do not now, nor will they ever represent We the People who have conservative values.  They make huge promises to get our votes then spit in our faces as soon as they get in office.

I wrote a blog article not too long ago  reminding people of the promises John Boehner made in 2009/2010.  He has never fulfilled any of them, instead minimizing the influence of the TEA Party in 2010 and blaming us for the losses in 2012.  Karl Marx Rove has declared war on TEA conservatives and all but called us “enemies of the state”.  While he has been forced to grovel a bit we all know he meant what he said and will stab us in the back every chance he gets.

The New World Order globalists running both political parties despise everything our founders stood for, and so in turn despise everything I stand for as a conservative.  We the People need, not just one, but scores of heroes who will stake their fortunes on our future.  The founders did it and won a great crusade that established a freedom and a nation based on God given rights that has been the “shining city on a hill” (John Winthrop) for 237 years.

Republican governors are succumbing to the allure of millions of tax dollars to implement Obamacare in spite of the opposition of voters.  John Kasich in Ohio and Tim Scott in Florida are but  two prime examples of Republican politicians who were supported by TEA Party conservatives, got elected behind that support, and are now turning their backs on the promises they made and the people who supported and elected them.  There are more, including Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, who publicly denounces Obamacare but works feverishly behind the scenes trying to implement it before We the People can stop it.  This duplicity is treason in my mind, and an offense that should be punished by impeachment at the very least.

During the 2012 campaign I worked with a man named John Albert Dummett Jr. who was running for president as a Republican.  John is just like me; a nobody who cares about his country and the legacy left behind by such great men as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Nathan Hale, and countless others who risked so much for liberty.  John Dummett is in this same class but doesn’t have the national stage of those I mentioned earlier.  His platform is one that conservatives everywhere can get behind.  He is a well-educated and well-spoken man who can stand with anyone when it comes to knowledge of our Constitution and the courage to “protect, defend, and uphold” same.  He should be a part of a new creation also.

When you look at demographics you find that 40% of Americans are Republican, 40% Democrat, and 20% Independent.  The TEA Party montage makes up 67% of We the People.  If all 20% of Independents identify as TEA people there are still 47% that have to come from somewhere, namely both political parties. Two-thirds of anything is a winning proposition.

It is time for real “change we can believe in”.  The outright lies and deceit of both political parties has reached a point that cannot be ignored by anyone who loves liberty.  I am as much of a patriot as anyone, but lack the financial resources and public stage to make the kind of difference that can be made by the rich and famous among conservatives.

We the People are here; looking for encouragement, direction, and confidence in a future as great as that established 237 years ago with the defeat of Great Britain and the ratification of our founding document, The Constitution of the United States of America.

You people have the financial resources to get a party started and the fame to garner support from millions of Americans desperately seeking leaders they can believe in and count on.  If all of you and all of those other unnamed conservatives would band together with the various TEA Party factions, Freedom Works, and other organizations we could forge an unbeatable force for freedom that would rival the accomplishments of 1776.  Will you pledge “ your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor” to liberty?  I have no fortune but will pledge my life, my talents, and my sacred honor to the cause.  All I need is a direction and that isn’t available through the Republican Party.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February 26, 2013

Murray falsely claims that:

“The benefits of free trade are many, and accepted by virtually all economists. They include reductions in the cost of living, greater choice and increased quality of goods, higher incomes on both sides, economic growth and, perhaps most important in an increasingly corporatist America, a reduction in the effectiveness of lobbying. Protectionism provides the reverse in all of these cases, and would be just as foolish now as when the Smoot-Hawley law deepened the Depression. (…)

However, that last benefit in the list I just provided has not escaped the eye of special interests. Indeed, most of the free trade agreements which America has negotiated in recent years have been heavily influenced by lobbyists, not only from industry, but also from the environmental and labor organizations. They have consistently insisted on inserting measures into the agreements that maintain protections for their interests and reduce the scope for the full benefits from free trade.”

All of his claims are blatant lies.

There are NO benefits from free trade. None whatsoever. It is protectionism that brings about the benefits he claims, not free trade.

How do we know it? From the facts – from the results of real life, not theoretical theses put forward by Murray and others living in their academic ivory towers.

Increased quality of goods? Don’t make me laugh. The goods that the US imports from China and other “developing” countries are of abysmally low quality, made from weak materials in a poor fashion, breaking down after little time of use, and many of them – including toys and food – are poisoned with lead (toys) or melamine (food). The problem is so grave that one American mother raised that question in a 2007 GOP presidential debate. Virtually anyone who has bought anything made in China will attest to the poor quality of Chinese goods.

Reductions in the cost of living? Rising incomes on both sides? Is that a joke? Since the ratification of the first “free trade” deals in the 1990s, the real wages and real income of low-income and middle-class workers has remained flat in inflation-adjusted dollars. The only Americans who have seen their incomes rise since then have been the wealthy – the CEOs of large corporations who are happy to ship jobs overseas (mostly to China).

Greater choice? China’s price-dumping, flooding of the US with extremely low quality goods, and refusal to implement any environmental or labor standards has undercut and undermined American companies and to the flooding of store shelves with Chinese products, leaving Americans with little choice other than these low-quality products.

Reduction in the effectiveness of lobbyists? Don’t make me laugh. It was precisely lobbyists – and no one else – who wanted and secured the passage of all free trade deals ratified by the US, from the WTO to the GATT to NAFTA, to Most Favored Nation status for China, to the disastrous KORUS FTA.

American workers and voters did not want these disastrous free trade deals. Indeed, they vehemently protested against them and urged their Congressmen and Senators to vote against them (especially against the KORUS FTA).

It was the greedy CEOs of large multinational corporations and their lobbyists on Capitol Hill who campaigned for and secured the passage of these disastrous (for America) deals.

Economic growth? That’s the most idiotic claim Murray has made. Free trade has done nothing but stymie US economic growth. Historically, the US economy has grown fastest when operating under protectionist (economically nationalist) policies: protective tariffs.

Indeed, this is what all history – of all countries – shows. It proves that protectionism is what brings about fast economic growth, while “free trade” (i.e. being a dupe who borrows money to buy foreign products and destroys his own industry) leads to economic stagnation.

Protectionism (economic nationalism) is the trade policy of ascendant economic powers; free trade, the policy of descending, declining ones.

EVERY country which ever became an economic power became one by protecting and nurturing its industrial base – England under the Acts of Navigation, France under Jean-Baptiste Colbert and Napoleon Bonaparte, Britain until the mid-19^th century, Prussia under the Customs Union (1834-1871), unified Germany under Bismarck and his successors, the US from 1861 to the 1960s, postwar Japan, China today.

NO country ever became an economic power by indulging in free trade, which is only for dupes and idiots and leads to economic disaster.

The US became the world’s economic superpower – indeed, was once the economic envy of the world – because from 1861 until at least the 1960s it protected and nurtured its industry with tariffs that effectively barred most foreign products from the US and protected its industrial base while not hampering competition between domestic producers in any way (and antitrust legislation ensured that such competition would stay alive in the US).

Thus, the US became a world producer of everything, an economically fully self-sufficient country, supplying not just its large population but the entire world with all sorts of products, from alloys, to cars, to planes, to everything else. By the 1940s and the early 1950s, it accounted for 50% of the world’s industrial production, partially due to the damage WW2 inflicted on Europe but partially due to the protection of the American industry (which was indispensable in winning that war by producing weapons for the US and its allies).

This was because, from its founding until at least the 1960s, the US followed the preceipts of the Founding Fathers, especially Alexander Hamilton: Trade surpluses are preferrable to trade deficits. It does matter where things are produced. There is no free lunch. Manufacturing, not finance, is the nation’s economic muscle.

But today, the US hardly manufactures anything and has become dependent on foreign countries – especially China – on all sorts of products, including the necessities of life.

“Free trade” has been a total disaster for the US. Since 2000 alone, thanks to free-trade policies, over 55,000 factories across the country have been closed and relocated overseas, mainly to China, and 6 million good, well-paying manufacturing jobs have been shipped – mostly to China. The only reward is the dubious privilege of buying low-quality Chinese goods.

Before NAFTA’s ratification, the US had an annual trade surplus with Mexico; since 1993, however, it has had a trade deficit with that country every year and the 2012 trade deficit was the largest between the two in history. After ratification of the KORUS FTA, America’s trade deficit with South Korea jumped threefold in April 2012 alone. Our trade deficit with Japan is the largest ever between us.

America’s trade deficit with China is the largest ever between any two countries in human history: $300 bn in 2012.

Not just between the US and China, but the largest between any two countries on God’s green Earth in all recorded human history!

And yes, trade deficits do matter. A lot. They decrease the country’s GDP while increasing the GDP of the country you’re buying from. This is not surprising to anyone who knows economics 101: to be able to buy something, you have to earn the money to buy it – or borrow it. If you borrow money, you’re driving yourself deeper into debt. If you buy it with the money you’re already have, you’re transferring your income to the other guy. He earns money and you lose it.

If he sells you more than he buys from you, he makes more money at YOUR expense than YOU do at his expense. In other words, on net, he earns money at YOUR expense: he takes money from you, while you lose money.

Producing goods creates jobs (all goods have to be made by someone). If you buy goods from a foreign country, you’re creating jobs in THAT country rather than yours, and increasing the income of THAT country rather than yours, while you lose money and jobs (or, at minimum, the opportunity to create jobs at home).

That country gains and you lose.

If you buy more from abroad than you export, you’ll have to borrow money to buy those things, thus driving yourself deeper and deeper into debt.

Those “economists” who support free trade clearly don’t even know Economics 101, or the Basic Facts of Life 101.

Free trade has also been a political disaster for Republicans. They’ve been complicit in its making, indeed often leading the campaign for it, and helped destroy most of American industry. Might the wiping out of most factories in the Midwest and the Northeast have had anything to do with Republicans inability to win those states and their foolish advocacy of free trade?

Illinois and Michigan haven’t voted Republican since 1984; Pennsylvania, not since 1988; Ohio, not since 2004.

By contrast, from 1860 to 1924, Republicans – then known as The Party of Protection – put 12 presidents only in the White House. The Democrats put only 2.

In short, the claims of Iain Murray and other free traders – none of whom have ever built a great nation – are blatant lies.

Gun manufacturing company, Olympic Arms, Inc. has turned down a solicitation to advertise in the FOP Journal, the publication of the National Fraternal Order of Police.  The FOP very strongly supports the most extreme of gun control measures, highlighted by their jumping for joy over the Diane Feinstein proposal.  Olympic Arms issued a statement with “grievances” listed as their reasons for refusing to advertise with the FOP.  They went even farther, saying they will not sell to, advertise with, or generally do business with any other entity supporting gun control, including the federal government. Other firearm manufacturers have also refused to sell to government entities.

In a related matter, Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania has called for civilian volunteers to join with his police department in building a “reserve force” (sorry Sheriff, I live in Oklahoma or I would sign up).  The purpose of the group Kessler calls for is to provide aid to his police department should the need arise to resist Federal authorities when it comes to the Second Amendment and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens.  This is about as “grassroots” as grassroots can get, local citizens joining with local law enforcement to enforce the tenets of the Constitution.  Many sheriffs across the nation have stood up for their oath to the residents of their counties and to their oath to The Constitution of the United States of America.  I call on every sheriff in the nation to join the Constitutional Sheriffs Association  and be a part of the defense of liberty in America. If you are a sheriff, please sign on.  If you are a relative, or just a citizen, urge your county sheriff to take this stand with We the People.

Another large concern is the situation with ammunition.  The government bought 1.6 BILLION, (yep, with a “B”) rounds of ammunition in just the last ten months of 2012  and are about to order 21.6 million more rounds in the next couple of months.   They bought .40 caliber hollow points and 5.56/2.23 ammunition, causing shortages and outrageous prices.  And to make a side point for the “low information voter” and those who may just not know anything about firearms and ammunition, hollow point ammunition cannot be used in war due to Geneva Convention bans on their use.  Also, the use of such expensive ammunition for target practice is ludicrous.  That only leaves one place to use those hollow points, and that is on We the People. They are designed to do maximum damage to the human body, not paper targets.  The federal government has already amassed enough bullets to shoot each American citizen; that is every man, woman, and child in the nation, 5or 6 times.  And they are putting out solicitations for even more “personal defense weapons”, that in my hands is an “assault weapon”.  Same gun; different hands, different designation.

If the manufacturers of ammunition want to stand with We the People, and their own ultimate future, they will join in this refusal to sell to, and/or advertise with organizations and agencies that seek the demise of the firearms industry.   These companies stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars, money that will come out of the pockets of working class patriots who believe that the right to keep and bear arms comes from God, not man.  In their quest to put money in their pockets these manufacturers are enabling the subjugation of their own employees, along with the rest of us.

So essentially, I am buying “personal defense weapons” and a lot of ammunition; for bureaucrats, including the NOAA, our nation’s hurricane forecasters, and other bureaucrats who have no need for guns and ammunition at all, much less in such quantities.  How many weather forecasters need a full-automatic military rifle to forecast a hurricane? In the process of this government largesse, the availability and cost of guns and ammunition to people like myself is becoming impossible.  And where are these weapons actually going?

I call on all manufacturers of anything related to the 2nd Amendment to take this same stand.  We the People have shown our willingness to support your companies.  The sale of firearms, ammunition, and accessories have skyrocketed in the last few years as people become more and more alarmed at the actions of the federal government. Those who now reap huge profits from a growingly abusive government will eventually fall prey to the appetite of this same government.  If you don’t believe me go back and check on Willy Messerschmitt, for one.

Nazi Germany saw many industrial magnates profit by supporting Adolph Hitler and his regime of terror and murder. Naturally when the dust settled they had nothing.  How about the lessons from Soviet Russia, Cuba, Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and on and on and on?  Will our arms industries follow the example of these countries or will they join in the movement of a civilized people to return our nation to the values espoused by our founders?  Will these companies and the people who manage them look to the Constitution and our founders or will they stand with those bent on dictatorship?

We the People are standing up to the tyranny being forced upon us.  We have lost the sad excuse we have for a news media.  They are totally controlled by the NWO globalists and loudly call for disarmament and the abolition of the Constitution.   And while one political party actively and openly strives to enslave its citizens the other one hems and haws around while looking for excuses to send Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter/bombers to the Muslim Brotherhood.  These politicians, who are so concerned about “honoring a treaty with Egypt”, are hiding behind rhetoric to ignore their oath to honor the Constitution as they assist in the subjugation and enslavement of their supporters. The Muslim Brotherhood can be trusted with state-of-the-art weapons systems but I can’t be trusted with a semi-automatic rifle!!!!!

Who is the enemy and who is the friend here? We already know where both political parties stand.  Those questions need to be answered by the ammunition manufacturers who are raking in profits from wanna-be dictators as our Republic travels down the rest of the road to dictatorship.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity in faith, with the responsibility given to me be Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February 14, 2013

“Architect” Karl Rove is a progressive disaster to the Republican Party: He’s pushing to destroy the Tea Party and American conservatism in order to install his version of politics that mirrors Woodrow Wilson.

There’s not much difference between Wilson and Rove: Wilson wanted control over the Democrat Party and the American people abiding by his will.  Rove is doing the exact same thing: Controlling the GOP vote by putting RINO candidates up against Tea Party candidates in order to destroy conservatives.

Rove  decides GOP primary winners,  not voters.  Rove chose the 2008 and 2012 presidential candidates:  John McCain and Mitt Romney. Both decisions failed and the GOP was defeated like Waterloo on steroids.

Yet, Rove is hell-bent on choosing the 2014 and 2016 GOP candidates and preventing Tea Party candidates from getting on ballots. And the GOP machine does not care: Its goal is power, not constitutionalism.

The result: The GOP is failing because it keeps bringing this power-hungry, overweight knife to the political gun fight.

Despite Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC proving a dismal failures, the GOP refuses to learn lessons and listen to its conservative base. Instead, the GOP wants Rove to move ahead with his Wilsonian-style plan: Decide the candidates people need as president, Senate and House leaders.

To pull off this anti-Constitution, strong-arming-the-people plan, Rove set up the Conservative Victory Group, another progressive-style Pac to choose candidates, and further to the point, advise candidates on what they can and cannot articulate.

Rove’s plan was laid out in the New York Times:

The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate. Steven J. Law, a leader of the Conservative Victory Project, say they are taking steps to steer Mr. King away from a Senate run. The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

Notice Rove’s goal: “protect Senate incumbents” from Tea Party candidates and “counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates.” In other words, down with Mia Love Tea Partiers shaking things up, no Todd Akin slip-ups allowed on ballots, and defeat upstarts like incumbent Rep. Allen West, whom Rove could not “discipline” and “impose” his GOP power.

Rove’s ideology is similar to British constitutionalism where leaders, not the people,  pick prime ministers and MPs, and decide laws as they go. That was Woodrow Wilson’s ideology. Is it any different than Rove picking candidates? Worse, is that any different than Wilson’s desire to abolish the Separation of Powers?

No, Rove has never called for abolishing Separation of Powers so presidents have parliamentary-style control.  However, if party leaders control votes, prevent people from deciding primary candidates, party leaders control Congressional leader’s votes, and Separation of Powers dissolves, and the House and Senate belong to party leaders, not voters.

To cover his fat rump, Rove made radio talk show rounds, backtracking his bashing the Tea Party.  Big deal! Rove believes he is the architect of politics and he’s attempting to design America’s leadership.

Rove assumes he knows what’s best for the people, as Wilson himself believed. Rove is Woodrow Wilson in every sense of the Progressive Movement: Mold the party, voters, and America’s future to party leadership command, not the Constitution. How is that “consent of the governed?”

There is nothing conservative about Rove’s Conservative Victory Party or Rove.

Wilson said choose elite candidates best suited for making the people’s decisions. Candidates must do the thinking for the people, because citizens are too inept at making individual decisions.

Wilson said: “Governments are what the politicians make them…:”

[T]here should be a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike, to strengthen and purify its organization, and to crown its duties with dutifulness.

Rove too wants to “make” the government.

Matt Hoskins, Executive Director of Senate Conservatives Fund said of Rove:

This is a continuation of the establishment’s effort to avoid blame for their horrible performance in the 2012 elections. They [the GOP] blew a ton of races up and down the ticket because they recruited moderate Republicans who didn’t stand for anything. Now they want to use this new PAC to trick donors into giving them more money so they can lose more races.

Hoskins is correct.  Rove helped destroy GOP conservative Florida Rep. Allen West by refusing to help West win reelection and stop the redistricting of West’s seat.

Rove trashed Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin as “thin-skinned,” claiming that if no one speculates “about her, she’d be upset and try and find a way to get us to speculate about her.”

It sounds like chunky skin, who was adamant Palin would run for the 2012 presidency, is not only off beam with erroneous predictions, he’s jealous of popularity that may possibly destroy his power.

Rove demonstrated disloyalty to Rep. Michele Bachmann when Bachmann demanded answers to why Muslim Brotherhood-connected Huma Abedin-Weiner was Hillary Clinton’s top aid with high security clearance in the State Department. GOP leaders Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Speaker John Boehner condemned Bachmann. Rove took the RINO side against Bachmann.

When it comes to breaking Constitution law to grant illegals amnesty, Rove tramples the Constitution for the Hispanic vote. He is empowering Tea Partier-turned-RINO Senator Marco Rubio, whom Rove says has “The framework of the proposed reforms highlights the persuasive powers of Sen. Marco Rubio.”

Notice the phrase “persuasive.”  Rove wants “persuasive” leaders making voter’s decisions. That is what Wilson wanted:

“Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises… Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.

This is exactly what Rove is doing with conservative voters who must reject what will surely destroy conservatism if “We The People” don’t stand up and fight Karl Rove.

Rove’s Conservative Victory Project is progressivism. His record demonstrates he’s not a Republican, he’s a left-wing progressive in GOP clothing molding the GOP into his image, just as Wilson did with Democrats and America.