#NeverTrump7 = BREAK GLASS in CASE of “A Republic, if you can keep it” EMERGENCY

I’ve had this tweet pinned since before Memorial Day:

A week or so later, I was thrilled beyond description to see this paragraph in The Hill:

And then June 4th I see this, Dear GOP Convention Delegates: Declare Your Independence”  by Steave Deace at Conservative Review, which I have excerpted below the line.

I sure hope this is the beginning of something…

If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why do we have conventions anyway? Who are these delegates? These crazy people on the floor with the straw hats and the pins and the red/white/blue shirts?” Steve offers an answer* but I would like to offer my own.

What if the primary winner dies? (God forbid! And I mean that sincerely. As catastrophic as I believe a Trump – or Hillary – Presidency would be, we don’t want anyone harmed. Ever.) Think about it. What if it’s right now, the beginning of June, 5 weeks from the convention, 5 months from the November election. We’ve just had a year of campaigning. Seventeen candidates, save one, dispensed with. What if something happens?

We couldn’t POSSIBLY get a 50 state mulligan (57 states & territories, actually, but let’s not be persnickety). There’s NO WAY we could have a do-over. For the OBVIOUS logistical reasons, but also the Constitutional question. The people had their say. They cast their votes, chose their delegates. It’s done. You can’t disenfranchise those millions of people. You just can’t.

Thus, the delegates system. THAT’S WHY THEY’RE THERE. “Break Glass in Case of Emergency.” Now, typically, they vote the way their states voted and it’s desperately anti-climactic, the nominee having achieved 50%+1 of his party’s popular vote and 50%+1 (=1237) of his party’s delegates.

But we don’t have that this time. Trump’s achieved roughly 40% of the popular vote of his party. 2 of every 5 Republicans. 3 of every 5 Republicans voted NOT Trump. Perhaps not affirmatively negative (!) but OTHER than, to be sure.

And the delegates “win”? Hardly resounding. Trump will be sent limping to Cleveland. The stupid frickin’ corrupt RNC purposely crowded the field with a dozen candidates knowing Jeb was worse than beige-Volvo-vanilla and needed the field fractured to emerge with the most votes/delegates.

Then Trump happened. And it backfired spectacularly. S-P-E-C-T-A-C-U-L-A-R-L-Y.

I won’t go through the whole history of 2nd ballot Presidents (or 2+ ballots) but it’s happened before. Several times. We got Lincoln that way.

Anyway… Trump should be any sane, sentient, moral person’s own personal red line. I can’t vote for him. I can’t. With Hillary or Donny it’s like being forced to choose which I wanted amputated: Hands? Or feet?

I choose neither.


*I did not include that portion of his article below, but you can see it in his original text.


…(The new book, “Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate” is) co-authored by Curly Haugland, a 17-year veteran member of the RNC, who also currently sits on the powerful rules committee for the convention[.] The book uses the RNC’s own actual rules to make its case all GOP delegates are not bound to vote for Donald Trump (or anyone else as the nominee) who violates their conscience. …

If Haugland is right, and he is on the rules committee after all, then not a single GOP delegate is bound to vote for Trump as the Republican nominee. Especially given that Trump’s politics and character make him a far better standard bearer for the Democrats.

And lest anyone think this sounds like Obama picking and choosing which laws he’ll uphold, these RNC rules are in place to protect the system from just such a leader. See, this is how a republican form of government works. The popular vote puts a check-and-balance on the political class, but elected representatives (in this case delegates) put a check-and-balance on the unbridled passions of a wayward electorate. It’s why the Founding Fathers gave us mechanisms such as juries and the Electoral College in the first place.

This is now your role in preserving our constitutional republic if you are a GOP delegate.

This is why our representatives take an oath “so help me God” and not “so help me will of the people.”  …Never fear, delegates. You have the green light. Now all you need is the same sense of duty and courage that drove our Founding Fathers to dedicate their lives, fortunes and sacred honors to a cause that would keep generations of Americans free from the various and relentless yokes of tyranny.

Oh, and that doesn’t mean “let’s compromise and move passive-aggressively on the floor to make Ted Cruz the running mate because, unity.” If you admire Cruz’s courage of conviction, and see him as a future standard bearer for our ideals, you will dare not paint him into such a corner. … Cruz has taken more flack on our behalf than pretty much any Republican in recent memory, so he deserves a much better fate than that no-win scenario. Instead, focus your ire where it belongs. …

Don’t let the media that hates you pick your nominee (again). Insist this July that we will be led by a leader who respects the laws of nature and nature’s God, instead of a crude populist whose tantrums seduce us from both the left and the right. The country deserves much better, as does the party of Lincoln and Reagan which you now steward. It’s either that, or we may sadly look back years from now as the moment you helped accelerate American Exceptionalism’s collective fade to black.


Who’s Zoomin’ Who, Donny?

I have long contended that if the GOPe (GOP Establishment) were forced to choose between the two, Cruz or Trump, they’d choose Trump in a heart beat. Why? Here’s why (You can click the image on the right to enlarge it):

Gravy train. “Trump train” my ass . It’s the gravy train that’s now a’rollin’. Of the two, Trump will deal. Cash. Cruz will always choose the Constitution.

And cash is more fun, isn’t it?

Add in this excellent article below from American Thinker by Daren Jonescu, and it appears my thinking is now being actively validated.


Is Trump a McConnell-Rove Establishment Tool?

On January 19, Donald Trump, the loudest Republican claimant to the anti-establishment label, filled out his recent attacks on Ted Cruz in a very telling way, as revealed on Mark Levin’s radio program (click here, select the 1/19/16 podcast, go to the 23 minute mark):

We've been contacted by the establishment types.  They all want to know, how do they get involved with the campaign?  They're giving up on their candidates…and I mean these are real establishment people, that I've known when I was a member of the establishment -- meaning a giver, a big donor.  But they are contacting us -- Corey [Trump's campaign manager], I think we can say that very honestly, they're contacting us left and right about joining the campaign, and these are serious establishment types.

Who might these “real,” “serious” establishment types be?  Perhaps there is a hint in this subsequent comment, a follow-up to his recent pro-establishment assault against Ted Cruz:

So when you talk about temperament, Ted has got a rough temperament, I don't know.  You know, you can't call people liars on the Senate floor, when they're your leader.

This, of course, is a direct reference to Cruz’s criticism of Mitch McConnell regarding the GOP establishment leader’s secret deal with Barack Obama prior to a trade vote.

Donald Trump defending Mitch McConnell, you ask?  The answer is yes, and the explanation may be found by examining Trump’s recent history as a political donor.

Back in early 2013, Tea Party conservatives, fed up with McConnell’s feckless (to be generous) Senate leadership, his semi-tough talk that never seems to match his legislative decisions and results, and his relentless suppression of the conservative minority in the Senate, sought to supplant this establishmentarian’s establishmentarian by supporting a conservative rival in the 2014 Kentucky primary.

In response to this challenge, a super PAC called “Kentuckians for Strong Leadership” was formed to raise funds for McConnell’s scorched earth campaign against not only his own Tea Party rival, but the whole Tea Party movement.  I put the group’s name in scare quotes because, of its fifty-eight major donors — those who had given $1000 or more as of May 15, 2014 — the Louisville Courier-Journal identified only five with Kentucky addresses.  “Kentuckians for Strong Leadership” was in fact, as Tony Lee reported at Breitbart at the time, a re-branding of Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, an organization expressly dedicated to destroying the constitutionalist movement in favor of the old guard GOP establishment.

The big donors to Mitch McConnell’s anti-Tea Party defense fund gave amounts ranging from $1000 to $250,000.  In the upper half of this donor list appears one Donald J. Trump, who gave $50,000 to the group.  Five days earlier, he had already donated a few thousand dollars to McConnell’s campaign directly.  This total donation is far and away the largest contribution Trump has ever made to any individual Washington politician’s campaign — at least ten times larger than any other contribution he has made to a national Republican candidate.  Indeed, one has to cross over to the Democrat side of his donor history to find anything comparable to this contribution at any level of government.  That would be his $50,000 donation to Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral campaign in December 2010.

Mitch McConnell has been perhaps the single most prominent leader — certainly the most powerful — in the Republican Party’s long-standing effort to “crush” (McConnell’s word) the grassroots constitutional conservative movement that threatens the privileged status of the Washington Brahmin caste, aka the American political establishment.

In 2014, the Tea Party had the temerity to challenge McConnell directly on his own home turf.  He did indeed crush them there, as he would happily crush them in the Senate.  His effort to annihilate the constitutionalist resistance was funded heavily by a nationwide group of donors affiliated with Karl Rove, who presumably shared McConnell’s and Rove’s desire to defend the establishment against the belligerent serfs who were daring to assert their liberty against its permanent privilege.

Donald Trump was a major donor to that effort.  He even threw another $10,000 into the pot in October 2014, to bring his total contribution to McConnell to more than $60,000.

Now he is attacking his primary rival, Ted Cruz, on the grounds that “Nobody in Congress likes him,” and, more specifically, that “you can’t call people liars on the Senate floor, when they’re your leader.”

Donald Trump is no longer making a generic accusation against Cruz’s demeanor or reputation.  He is slapping him on behalf of the Republican he has supported most generously, Mitch McConnell.  I have previously argued that Trump’s reputation as anti-establishment is all hot air, corresponding to nothing he has ever really done.  Here we have just one more clear example of that.

A conservative blogger friend recently suggested to me privately that he is not ready to reject outright the possibility that Trump is actually the establishment’s clever creation — that, after years of deepening threats from an increasingly serious constitutionalist faction within the GOP, the progressive Republicans may have surmised that the best path to victory is, as my friend puts it, to “run against themselves.”

Whether strategic or merely fortuitous, the alliance between Donald Trump and the GOP establishment, which has lurked verifiably behind Trump’s brash mask for years, has now become an open feature of his primary campaign.  And the chief target, Enemy Number One, of both parties in this alliance is Ted Cruz.  Cruz is “nasty” and “nobody likes him,” as Trump says, because he is brazenly defiant toward the GOP establishment’s leaders.

And you thought the whole point of being anti-establishment was to be brazenly defiant toward the establishment’s leaders.  Silly you.  Apparently, a real anti-establishment candidate would not donate $60,000 to Mitch McConnell’s “crush the Tea Party” campaign.


A Time for Choosing, Indeed

So, I’m up in the middle of the night, listening to talk radio, this time, Red State Studio B, and whoever is on decides Thanksgiving weekend is a good time to play Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech (“the last stand on earth” & “rendezvous with destiny” speech). I’d never heard or read the whole thing, just portions of it, so I decide to listen. Soon I realize why it’s such a landmark speech and decide to find the text. I see the date. It was given before I was born.  But it was given, almost exactly 9 months before I was born. And when I was born, my birth-mother had her own time for choosing. She chose,  heroically, to give me to my parents, who chose to give me as good a life as any human being could ever ask for.  Thanksgiving, indeed.

Reagan Time for Choosing

And here we are. I’m 50 now. Both my mothers are dead.  And quite apart from the more profound peculiarities of this stage of life, I find myself having now fully matured into the same political awakening Mr. Reagan had; having moved from Democrat to Republican, but really toward The Constitution.  The speech “A Time for Choosing” was not so much about faction as it was about Liberty – capital “L” Liberty. People are always shocked when I tell them I voted twice for Bill Clinton. I voted twice for George W. Bush, too.  And then Obama happened. And oh…. LORDY! Haven’t we all had a crash course in progressivism!

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing… after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

“Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing… after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

Lots of people “on my side” are unforgiving to people who voted for Obama the first time (We are all unforgiving to people who voted for him the second time!).  I’m not. I get it. I mean… I knew who he was, and I emailed my Democratic buddies back in ’08, imploring them to please rethink their vote (to no avail), but I understood. A lot of people “on my side” don’t understand it. Lament that it’s not Obama so much as it is a people who could elect him. And that’s a right and proper thing to be concerned with, but I think it misses something. Something really, really important:

We are a good people. An optimistic people. A deeply, profoundly fair people. We’re willing to give someone a chance. That’s how people like Obama get elected (the first time – the second time is a whole different matter, for another time…).

Anyway… Here’s the speech. Enjoy:

 A TIME FOR CHOOSING, given by Ronald Reagan at the nominating convention for Republican Barry Goldwater,  October 27, 1964

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.


Mr. Cruz Goes to Washington

It’s not easy to shock the cynical Washington press corps.

This did.

The tweets I saw after this speech on the floor of the United States Senate by Ted Cruz were uniformly full of shock.  Why?  Because it very rarely happens that someone calls out a member of their own party so publicly.  Add to that the member being called out is the Senate Majority Leader.  Add to that he is being called a liar.  Add to that the one calling him a liar has 53 witnesses.  Add to that the 53 witnesses are all members of the same party.  Add to that the one speaking is the only one who called him out on it.

Oh dear.

He’s put everyone in rather a tough spot, hasn’t he?

Here is the full transcript of Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) floor speech of Friday, July 24, 2015 absolutely scorching the saggy corrupt hide right off Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KS).

I cannot recommend it to you highly enough.





July 24, 2015  Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), on The Floor of the United    States Senate

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, today is a sad day for this institution.
The Senate operates based on trust. Whether we are Democrats or
Republicans, these 100 Senators have to be able to trust that when a
Senator says something, he or she will do it, even if we disagree on
substance–that we don’t lie to each other.

What we just witnessed this morning is profoundly disappointing. I
want to describe the context of two preceding discussions.
A number of weeks ago, when this Senate was considering trade
promotion authority, a group of Senators gathered on this floor and
blocked TPA for many minutes because they were pressing for the Export-
Import Bank. They huddled on this floor and negotiated a deal in front
of C-SPAN and in front of the world. Then, when they had their deal,
TPA had the votes to pass.

Shortly thereafter, we had a Senate Republican lunch, where I stood
and asked the majority leader, very directly: What is the deal that was
just cut on TPA and was there a deal for the Export-Import Bank? It was
a direct question I asked the majority leader in front of all of the
Republican Senators. The majority leader was visibly angry with me that
I would ask such a question, and the majority leader looked at me and
said: There is no deal. There is no deal. There is no deal. Like Saint
Peter, he repeated it three times.

He said: The only thing I told the proponents of the Export-Import
Bank is, like any other Senator in this body, they could offer any
amendment they liked on any amendable vehicle, but I gave them nothing.
There is no deal. I gave them nothing. He was emphatic and he was

Following that public discussion, Senator Mike Lee and I approached
the majority leader afterward, in which he emphasized: There is no
deal. I will do nothing. I oppose the Export-Import Bank. All I said is
they can offer an amendment like any Senator can to any bill.

I went back to my office and I sat down and I had a long discussion
with my staff. My staff told me that afternoon: He is lying to you.
That is what my staff said. We have been around the Senate a long time.
He is not telling you the truth.

What I told my staff that afternoon, I said: Well, I don’t know if
that is the case or not, but I don’t see how, when the majority leader
looks me in the eyes and makes an explicit promise–and by the way,
looks into the eyes of every other Republican Senator and says that to
every other Republican Senator–I don’t see how I cannot take him at
his word when he makes an explicit promise.

As a result, I cast my vote in May in support of TPA because I
support free trade, and I felt I had no choice but to assume that when
the majority leader spoke to 54 Republican Senators and made an
explicit promise, he wasn’t lying to us. Well, as TPA moved on and it
went to the House, it became abundantly clear there was a deal. There
was a deal in the House for the Export-Import Bank. So the second time
TPA came up, I voted no because of that corrupt deal.

Now, I will note to the public that the majority leader and the
Speaker of the House had repeatedly said: There was no corrupt deal.
There was no corrupt deal. We made no deal. We made no deal. That is
one element of the background context.

Let me tell you a second element of the background context. A number
of weeks ago, when we were debating the Corker-Cardin bill, the Iran
review act, there were a number of amendments that Senators had filed.
I filed an amendment that would actually put teeth in the Iran review
act by requiring affirmative congressional approval before sanctions on
Iran could be lifted. Other Senators filed very good amendments.
Senator Marco Rubio filed an amendment calling for Iran to recognize
Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State before sanctions could be
lifted. Our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle did not want to
vote on that amendment, and in response, the majority leader cut off
all amendments.

Now, I sat in the majority leader’s office, and I urged the majority
leader: Invoke cloture on Senator Rubio’s amendment. Invoke cloture on
Senator Rubio’s amendment calling on Iran to recognize Israel’s right
to exist and setting that as a precondition of any lifting of
sanctions. I argued vociferously with the majority leader that if the
Democrats were so opposed to voting on that amendment, that was all the
more reason, because it was important substantively. The majority
leader said no, he would not do so, that invoking cloture on an
amendment was an extraordinary step, and he would not do so. So he cut
off every amendment. He filled the tree.

It was striking a minute ago seeing the Democratic leader, Senator
Harry Reid, calling out the majority leader for filling the tree, for
engaging in the same procedural abuse that Harry Reid did over and over
and over again in this body. Now the Republican leader is behaving like
the senior Senator from Nevada.

What we just saw was not, Madam President, what the majority leader
told you and me and every other Republican Senator. What we just saw
was not that the proponents of the Export-Import Bank, like anyone
else, could stand up and offer whatever amendment they like on any
issue. What the majority leader did is, No. 1, he called up that
amendment. He called it up himself. Why does that matter? Because, as
the majority leader, he has priority of recognition. When he calls up
an amendment, no one can stop him. He didn’t just call it up; he filled
the tree. Just like Harry Reid, he filled the tree, blocking everyone
else’s amendment. And, by the way, I agree with Senator Reid when he
says the ObamaCare amendment is a cynical amendment. Of course it is.
It is empty showmanship. We will have a vote on repealing ObamaCare. The Republicans will all vote yes, and the Democrats will all vote no. It will be at a 60-vote threshold. It will be an exercise in meaningless political theater.
Mind you, when we had a fight in October of 2013 to actually stop
ObamaCare and defund it, the majority leader, then the minority leader,
was opposed to doing something with real teeth in it to stop ObamaCare.
But an empty show vote–that is a good way of distracting from what is
going on.

You know, there is a profound disappointment among the American
people because we keep winning elections and then we keep getting
leaders who don’t do anything they promise. The American people were
told: If only we have a Republican majority in the House, things will
be different. Well, in 2010, the American people showed up in enormous
numbers, and we got a Republican majority in the House, and very little
changed. Then the American people were told, you know, the problem is
the Senate. If only we get a Republican majority in the Senate and
retire Harry Reid as majority leader, then things will be different.
Well, in 2014, the American people rose up in enormous numbers and
voted to do exactly that. We have had a Republican majority in both
Houses of Congress now for about 6 months.

What has that majority done?

The first thing we did in December is we came back and passed a
trillion dollar CRomnibus plan filled with pork and corporate welfare.
That was the very first thing we did. Then this Republican majority
voted to fund ObamaCare, voted to fund President Obama’s
unconstitutional Executive amnesty. Then leadership rammed through the
confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. Which of those
decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid were still majority
leader? Not a one. Not a one. This Senate operates exactly the same–
the same priorities. Let me tell you why. It is not that this majority
doesn’t get things done. It does get things done. But it listens to one
and only one voice; that is the voice of the Washington cartel–the
lobbyists on K Street, the big money and big corporations.

If you go to the American people and ask if reauthorizing the Ex-Im
Bank is a priority for you, the standard response for most of them
would be this: The what? They don’t even know what this is. Let me tell
you what it is. It is an egregious example of corporate welfare. It is
the American taxpayer being on the dime for hundreds of billions of
dollars in loan guarantees given out to a handful of giant
corporations. It is a classic example of cronyism and corporate
welfare. By the way, among others, do you know what person had the
clarity of thought on that? Then-Senator Barack Obama, who described it
as a classic example of corporate welfare. That was when he was in the
Senate. Now that he is in the White House, corporate welfare sounds
pretty good. Now, just about all of the Democrats are supporting the
corporate welfare with the exception of Bernie Sanders. I will give
credit to Senator Sanders for standing up against corporate welfare.
But as to every Democrat who rails against big money and the corruption
of Washington, as to every Democrat who styles himself or herself a
populist, their actions on this matter speak far louder than their
words. When it comes to Republicans, Republicans also are listening to
K Street and the lobbyists. Why? It is not complicated. The giant
corporations that are getting special favors from the taxpayers hire an
army of lobbyists who write campaign checks after campaign checks. And,
by the way, these checks go to both Democrats and Republicans. It is
career politicians in both parties who are kept in office by looting
the taxpayer to benefit wealthy powerful corporations.

The single largest recipient of loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank
is the Boeing corporation. The Boeing corporation just had an earnings
call where their CEO said–and I am paraphrasing: We’ll be just fine
without the Ex-Im Bank. It is not impacting us. There are plenty of
private loan alternatives out there. But even though the market could
provide, it is a lot easier to have compliant lawmakers rob from the
public fist to enrich giant corporations.

Do you know who doesn’t have lobbyists? A single mom waiting tables.
Do you know who doesn’t have lobbyists? A teenage immigrant like my
father, washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour, struggling to achieve
the American dream. Do you know who doesn’t have lobbyists? A factory
worker who just wants to work and provide for his or her children. They
don’t have lobbyists, and so what happens? Career politicians in both
parties gang up with giant corporations to loot their taxes to make it
harder for people who are struggling to achieve the American dream.
Coal miners, Madam President, in your State don’t have lobbyists who
are representing them here–the individual miners–while the majority
leader teams up with the Democratic leader to take from their paychecks
to fund giant corporations. It is wrong and it is corrupt.

It saddens me to say this. I sat in my office. I told my staff: The
majority leader looked me in the eye and looked 54 Republicans in the
eye. I cannot believe he would tell a flatout lie, and I voted based on
those assurances that he made to each and every one of us. What we just
saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told
every Republican Senator but what he told the press over and over and
over again was a simple lie.

This institution should not operate at the beck and call of lobbyists
in Washington. This institution, the majority and minority leaders arm
in arm again, should not team up against the American taxpayers. It is
why our children are going bankrupt.

Now we are facing an enormous threat with this Iran deal. A nuclear
Iran poses the greatest national security threat to this country. Yet
the majority leader refused to do what he just did for the Export-
Import Bank on Iran. He refused to invoke cloture. That was an
extraordinary step. If he was telling us the truth when he said there
was no deal, why would he do what he just did? Well, we now know that
when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit
commitment, he is willing to say things that he knows are false. That
has consequences for how this body operates. If you or I cannot trust
what the majority leader tells us, that will have consequences on other
legislation as well, on how this institution operates.

There are a host of amendments that the American people have focused
on–issues such as defunding Planned Parenthood after the gruesome
video. The majority leader doesn’t want to vote on that. That is actually something the American people are focused on.

He brought up his ObamaCare amendment as a smokescreen, because it is
intended to fail. But you know, what he didn’t bring up was my
amendment to end the congressional exemption from ObamaCare–the
corrupt deal that Harry Reid cut with President Obama to exempt Members
of Congress. We ought to live under the same rules as everybody else.
The majority leader doesn’t want to vote on that because he doesn’t
want to end the cronyism for Members of Congress any more than end the
cronyism for giant corporations that enrich themselves at the expense
of the American people.

There are a host of priorities for the voters who elected you and me.
Madam President, I would ask you to think about when you were running
for the Senate not too long ago. Do you recall any of your constituents
ever saying: We want the Export-Import Bank. No, they want other
things. They have other priorities, but those are not the priorities of
the Republican leadership.

Sadly, today we have government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists,
and for the lobbyists. That is not how the Senate is supposed to
operate. A far more important amendment than bringing back this
corporate welfare and cronyism is my amendment that provides that
sanctions on Iran cannot be lifted unless and until Iran does two
things: No. 1, it recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State,
and No. 2, it releases the four American hostages languishing in
Iranian prisons. That is a far more important issue than enriching some
more lobbyists on K Street and getting a few more campaign
contributions. That is what we should be voting on.


Glenn Beck SCORCHES Karl Rove

Glenn Beck announced this week he was no longer a Republican.  He’d long ago stopped giving the RNC money (as I have) but this week he announced he was changing his party affiliation officially (I presume to Independent, but I didn’t catch that part.)

Well, Karl Rove was asked about it and snarkily dismissed it.  Oh dear.  I don’t think Karl understands what major influence Mr. Beck is on the Grand Ol’ Party… and how p*ssed off we all are at the Party’s record of failure these last years.  Well hoo-boy did Beck uncork on Karl… Glenn took to his Facebook page and absolutely scorched him.  I cut and pasted it in its entirety below.  I wish I could have written it myself because I agree with every blistering syllable.

Ouchies.  It’s gonna leave mark.


An open letter to ‪#‎KarlRove‬.

You want to rumble Rove? Come on to my show and let’s have it out.  Bring it on.  I would love to take you on WITH YOUR RECORD AND THE RECORD OF THE GOP.  I could do it with my eyes closed and in a coma.

You hung yourself on O’Reilly. By using my words to mock me, the audience heard my words. I would bet a good portion agreed with me. I was right at CPAC in 2011 and never invited back. What a shock!!!

If you don’t think that the Republicans are progressive light then you don’t know the history of the movement started by Teddy Roosevelt and the GOP.  There are good men and women in the party that believe in the constitution. Are you one of them?

Do you seriously believe that Jeb Bush is not progressive light? Help me out with Common Core and Jeb Bush!

How about Orrin Hatch’s role in targeting Mike Lee? Can you name a better, more honorable man than Mike?

How about Mitch McConnell and his targeting of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee?

How are things working out for all of the campaign promises? How about the deficit? The war? Defunding ObamaCare? Oh, didn’t the GOP vote to confirm Cass Sunstein? How is illegal immigration working out for you? (Actually, I know the answer: really well as your big corporate buddies love it. Especially down in the colonias). It is modern day slavery.

Has Grover started any new Muslim Brotherhood front groups you and the Bushes can pass off as the good guys? How about some more FCC regulation on the Internet?
Can you tell me one thing you have done? I mean beside the PATRIOT Act, the NSA and not stopping the IRS from massive abuse of power.

Oh, I forgot! You did get to the bottom of Benghazi. Oops. Nope. It must be because you are swamped in actually fixing the VA system for all the men YOU put in harms way. Gosh, sorry. No, you aren’t even doing that.

Wow. How do you find your way out of bed in the morning? Well maybe you don’t go to bed, because I know I couldn’t sleep if I were you or any of your cronies.

So let me rephrase. You guys couldn’t find your way outside standing in an open door frame.

How is the health of the three equal branches of government?

I will say this; you are better than the president. You are only half as bad. You are only doing the fundraising dinners, while he is doing that AND playing golf. It is almost like you are progressive light.

I know, you understand ‘strategy’ and I don’t. I know, you can’t push for these things right now! You will lose the presidency in 2016.

No, now you have to compromise on things like immigration etc. so you can win the White House. THEN you will have the White House, the Senate and the House. That is when you really go for it … Right?

Next time. Not now. That when things really change! Just like they did when you had both branches under Bush!!

Crap. Another bad example.

You guys have the spine of a worm, the ethics of whores, and the integrity of pirates. (My apologies to worms, whores and pirates)

You are right about one thing,  I have said this before. You are also right that you don’t need to worry about me.  You need to worry about the American public. Because they have had it up to their teeth with you, the GOP and the DNC lies.

You need to worry about yourself. After blowing almost a billion dollars on ‘I love government healthcare Romney,’ I would guess you don’t have too many more chances to save what is left of your career.  It is sad that you can no longer hear the American People because they could save you. Instead you listen to your political consultants and the amazing thing is you still believe all of it.

Can you not smell what you are shoveling anymore?

The world has changed. The whole world is being redesigned. Not by government but by dreamers and doers.

You are the taxi medallions in an Uber world.  You don’t have to be young to see that. You just have to be open and honest.  Instead, you just continue to shine up the progressive agenda of people like Jeb, pressure, corrupt or threaten freshmen and smear the good people of this country who believe in the actual principles enshrined in the constitution.

It is sad what the GOP has become. You would campaign against Reagan. (Cruz has the principles of Reagan- but all you see of Reagan was HOW Ronald Reagan won, not WHY he won). JFK would be too small government for the GOP as you see it.  “Government isn’t the solution, Government is the problem”. You believe only government run by the Democrats is a problem.

By the way: clever whiteboard trick. Only problem, the quote was right. Ted Cruz knew what you guys were doing and called you on it. He won’t play your game. Which is why millions of Americans support him and you and your progressive corporate fat cats will try to destroy him and anyone else that tries to tell the truth.

Good luck with that.

The future belongs to free people. The genie is out of the bottle. You will not be able to corral the spirit of America. Because it isn’t a person or a place. It is an idea.

Do you know why America is failing? Because we don’t even know who we are anymore. Why? Because people like you only care about ‘interests’ instead of ‘principles’.  Your interests, the party’s interests or national interests.  Those all change depending on the day and situation. Principles never change.

When you and the GOP find your unchanging and eternal principles – other than keeping your power and controlling people’s lives – let me know.

The people don’t trust Washington anymore. You haven’t given us a reason to, we are not as dumb as you thought and we will never sit down and shut up again. You have gone from being a man I thought was a good guy to a sad and quickly forgotten figure of the past.  It is never to late to change. You just have to be willing to admit your mistakes and live by principles. I have done so. When will you?