A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment

/9 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Vince AlongiProtecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 2 of 3

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. 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 Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”.

The letter stands for itself.

Read it and send it everywhere.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Reality of Long Term Unemployment

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: mediajorgenycIn his “Mission Accomplished” moment, Barack Hussein Obama ended his jobs council on Thursday, January 31, 2013. Despite the fact that more than 12 million people in the U.S. are still out of work.

Obama’s allies will point out that when the jobs council began two years ago, unemployment was above 9 percent and has since improved to 7.8 percent. What they conveniently overlook is that the unemployment number has shifted downwards in large part due to people who have exceeded their unemployment benefits are no longer being counted.

So, if you are a middle aged worker who has experienced long term unemployment, you have forever lost what for most people were the peak earning years of life. A time when under normal circumstances, the opportunity to save for retirement was most feasible financially.

Instead you were drawing unemployment benefits worth less than half what you used to make. As the result, instead of saving for retirement, you reduced your expenditures (read: standard of living) by half. Not to mention the loss of medical, vacation, 401k and other employer provided benefits. Then to add insult to injury, the self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” intellectual elite ruling class decide that the expiration of the unemployment benefits that sustained your Spartan existence means that for the purposes of their statistics, you are no longer out of work.

Even if you have honestly sought work for years and have been unsuccessful thanks to an economy crippled by their “progressive” economic policies, have used up all your personal savings and are a month or two away from living on the street.
The reality of long term unemployment is not being accurately portrayed by the Obama administration, their “progressive” political allies, or their devoted supporters within the institutionalized “progressive” left.
The economy is not growing. Jobs are not being created. If you are unemployed, prospects for future employment look bleak.
Their big government “stimulus” spending was devoted primarily to helping their “progressive” allies in blue states that needed the money to balance their own indebted balance sheets.

Every dollar spent on “stimulus” was obtained through a tax on the private sector. Instead of the private sector having the money they earned to invest in growing business and creating jobs, it was sent to Washington DC, where the cost of an ever growing, bloated bureaucracy was first removed, then redistributed to those deemed fit by the same self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” intellectual elite ruling class that has shown through their handling of the nation’s unemployment statistics that they are far more concerned with retaining their own grip on power than truly helping the little guy.

If you have a job, thank God and pray to keep it.

Read more on this story HERE.

America’s Last Chance

/1 Comment/in , /by

Let’s expose presidential prevarication. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama warned that Social Security checks will be delayed if Congress fails to increase the government’s borrowing authority by raising the debt ceiling. However, there’s an issue with this warning. According to the 2012 Social Security trustees report, assets in Social Security’s trust funds totaled $2.7 trillion, and Social Security expenditures totaled $773 billion. Therefore, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit, Social Security recipients are guaranteed their checks. Just take the money from the $2.7 trillion assets held in trust.

Which is the lie, Social Security checks must be delayed if the debt ceiling is not raised or there’s $2.7 trillion in the Social Security trust funds? The fact of the matter is that they are both lies. The Social Security trust funds contain nothing more than IOUs, bonds that have absolutely no market value. In other words, they are worthless bookkeeping entries. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that the taxes paid by today’s workers are immediately sent out as payment to today’s retirees. Social Security is just another federal program funded out of general revenues.

If the congressional Republicans had one ounce of brains, they could easily thwart the president and his leftist allies’ attempt to frighten older Americans about not receiving their Social Security checks and thwart their attempt to frighten other Americans by saying “we are not a deadbeat nation” and suggesting the possibility of default if the debt ceiling is not raised. In 2012, monthly federal tax revenue was about $200 billion. Monthly Social Security expenditures were about $65 billion per month, and the monthly interest payment on our $16 trillion national debt was about $30 billion. The House could simply enact a bill prioritizing how federal tax revenues will be spent. It could mandate that Social Security recipients and interest payments on the national debt be the first priorities and then send the measure to the Senate and the president for concurrence.

Read more from this story HERE.

Mark Steyn: Containing Hagel – Tehran Is Pleased That We Aren’t

/0 Comments/in , /by

You don’t have to be that good to fend off a committee of showboating senatorial blowhards. Hillary Clinton demonstrated that a week or so back when she unleashed what’s apparently the last word in withering putdowns: What difference does it make?

Quite a bit of difference it seems. This week, an over-sedated Elmer Fudd showed up at the Senate claiming to be the president’s nominee for secretary of defense, and even the kindliest interrogators on the committee couldn’t prevent the poor chap shooting himself in the foot.

Twenty minutes in, Chuck Hagel was all out of appendages.

He warmed up with a little light “misspeaking” on Iran. “I support the president’s strong position on containment,” he declared. Breaking news!

Obama comes clean on Iran! According to Hagel, the administration favors “containment.” I could barely “contain” my excitement! Despite official denials, many of us had long suspected that, lacking any stomach for preventing a nuclear Tehran, Washington would settle for “containing” them. Hagel has been a containment man for years: It worked with the Soviets, so why not with apocalyptic ayatollahs? As he said in a 2007 speech, “The core tenets of George Kennan’s ‘The Long Telegram’ and the strategy of containment remain relevant today.” Recent history of pre-nuclear Iran — authorizing successful mob hits on Salman Rushdie’s publishers and translators, bombing Jewish community centers in Buenos Aires, seeding client regimes in Lebanon and Gaza — suggests that these are fellows disinclined to be “contained” even at the best of times. But, even if Iran can be “contained” from nuking Tel Aviv, how do you “contain” Iran’s exercise of its nuclear status to advance its interests more discreetly, or “contain” the mullahs’ generosity to states and non-state actors less squeamish about using the technology? How do you “contain” a nuclear Iran from de facto control of Gulf oil, including setting the price and determining the customers?

Read more from this story HERE.

FDR: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”; Barack Obama: “I am not a Dictator” (+video)

/0 Comments/in /by

Back when being an American meant believing in America, FDR rallied the nation in his first inaugural speech in 1933 with his famous admonition that

“the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Fast forward to today when an economic malaise grips our nation, and the words choked out by our current president are: “I am not a dictator.” Translation: “I am not a leader.”

In the nadir of the Depression, FDR spoke solemnly to the nation:

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

In Obama’s world, his message to the nation is “I am not a leader dictator”. Here’s the text of this portion of his lecture to discussion with the press:

“Uh, ye ye ye you know . . . the uh . . . ih ah I mean Jessica, I . I . . I am not . . uh . . ah ah a dictator. I’m the President. So, ultimately if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say, uh, we need to go to catch a plane, uh, I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway, right?”

FDR continues to elevate the nation’s morale despite what seemed like a hopeless situation:

In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

Meanwhile, President Obama invokes Star Trek Star Wars:

“Most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree that I’m presenting a fair deal. The fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow, uh, you know, do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right.”

.

If only Barack Obama had studied FDR’s speeches, or possibly JFK, who in his inauguration uttered his famous challenge:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.

FDR’s “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance” now has a name – Barack Hussein Obama.

God help us.

The Spending Sequester Will Grow the Private Economy — Don’t Back Off

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Tax CreditsYesterday’s report of a 0.1 percent GDP decline for the fourth quarter came as a surprise to most forecasters. But it actually masks considerable strength in the private economy. Namely, housing investment in the fourth quarter jumped 15.3 percent annually, business equipment and software spiked 12.4 percent, and real private final sales rose 2.6 percent. All in, the domestic private sector of the economy increased 3.4 percent annually — a very respectable gain.

And here’s one for the record books: Working ahead of year-end tax hikes, individuals shifted so much money to the fourth quarter at the 35 percent top rate that personal income grew by 7.9 percent annually — a huge number. And there’s more: In order to beat the taxman, dividend income rose 85.2 percent annually. You think tax incentives don’t matter? Guess again.

Now, all this private-sector strength occurred despite the fact that government spending — namely military spending — dropped 6.6 percent. Inventories also lost ground and the trade deficit widened.

But here’s a key point: Military spending has now fallen virtually to its lower sequester-spending-cut baseline. It did so in one quarter by about $40 billion. So the brunt of the impact over the coming years has already been felt. (Normally, as of recent years, military spending has been virtually flat.)

Read more on this story HERE.

Fed’s Ivory Tower Just Got Smaller

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: fbobolasToday’s weaker than expected GDP report shows just how out of touch most professional economists remain with respect to the fundamental weakness of the US economy. After more than four years of nearly never ending monetary stimulus and more than $5 trillion worth of new federal debt, the economy remains stuck in a serious recession.

The report shows that federal stimulus and deficit spending can’t create sustainable economic growth.

Although the tepid data shocked many economists, I was not surprised. I believe zero growth is consistent with the state of the real economy. The stronger growth numbers that we saw in the second half of 2012 were likely inflated due to pre-election hopes.

The disappointing economic data takes on an even gloomier tone when considered against factors that will make recovery that much more difficult. Interest rates are making their first strong upward move in nine months. Yields on 10 year Treasury bonds are up 60 basis points since the end of July, and are over 2.00% for the first time since April 2012.

The dollar is falling against most currencies except the Japanese yen (it is down more than 11% against the Euro since July), and energy prices are rising (crude oil is approaching $100 per barrel). Although these conditions are not promising, the stock market seems blissfully out of touch. As of yesterday, the S&P 500 had advanced for 8 days in a row, its longest daily winning streak in eight years.

Read more on this story HERE.

Rubio Sellout to Establishment

/15 Comments/in , /by

A friend of mine, Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak, tweeted on Tuesday night that if immigration reform goes through Congress this year “it will almost solely be due to” Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

To which I replied: “you break it, you buy it.”

There are two different conservative narratives about Rubio’s dalliance with John McAmnesty and the other bi-partisan group of senators on board with his plan. The first is the glowing words coming from Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and now Rush Limbaugh. Just one day after Limbaugh made national news by trashing Rubio’s plan, he praised the senator effusively when Rubio appeared on his show to defend himself. That’s a big win for Rubio. Going on offense to defend himself is a much better approach to this scalding hot issue than Monday’s photo op with McAmnesty, Charles “we don’t need no stinking Constitution” Schumer, and Bob “where the underage hookers are” Menendez that I was critical of in my latest Business Insider column.

But while winning the support of three of the biggest name conservatives when it comes to the air war is important, perhaps even more crucial is winning the support of organizations that actually put conservative boots on the ground. And Rubio still has a ways to go where that’s concerned.

For example, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, one of the largest grassroots conservative organizations in the country, said that Rubio has essentially “kneecapped himself for 2016” (referencing the senator’s presumed presidential ambitions). In a column titled “Rubio Amnesty Plan Way Worse than I Thought,” AFA’s policy director referred to Rubio’s plan “as the same old bait and switch” conservatives have fallen for in the past.

Fischer adds “the solution Rubio is offering is the same one that created the mess we’re trying to clean up right now. It’s impossible not to think of the reigning definition of insanity as you listen to Republicans gamely expect magical results to come from ‘solutions’ that have never worked in the past and will never work in the future.”

Fischer points out that it’s impossible to deal with the issue of illegal immigration until you first realize that “illegals are not here for the citizenship, they are here for the benefits. The illegals who come here from Mexico come from a socialist state, where they are accustomed to thinking that it’s the government’s job to hand out goodies, and since America is richer than Mexico, they can get more goodies here, so here they come. They could care less about citizenship.”

Erick Erickson of Red State, who just signed on to become a Fox News contributor, says “I don’t like Marco Rubio’s plan.” What’s particular interesting about that is Erickson admits immigration is one issue where he leans to the left of most of his readers, and even he says “I think this plan is warmed over McCain-Kennedy and will do nothing to solve the problem.”

Specifically, Erickson says the Rubio plan “is clearly written by a group of men who seemingly love government, but do not love free markets, small businesses, or individuals. It is a plan based on faith in government, not free enterprise or the American people. It does nothing to actually solve our immigration problems, but hides behind the construct of ‘comprehensive’ reform. Along the way, it potentially adds more people to already overwhelmed entitlement programs, but then that too is another kicked can.”

It appears to me the GOP is split into three, evenly divided camps on the issue. To be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016, Rubio needs to win two out of three.

The first camp is comprised of party establishment people and libertarians like Judge Andrew Napolitano. Those two camps want Rubio’s plan to happen for different reasons. Pandering is in the bloodstream of the feckless Republican Party establishment. On the other hand, Napolitano and other libertarians are philosophically for open borders. Remember when Ron Paul said during the last presidential campaign he was against a border fence because he’s more concerned about a government trying to keep people from getting out more than letting people in? Although Rubio has won over these people this is not an issue that drives them to the polls in a primary.

This next third does get out and vote on this issue, and this third is against anything that even sniffs of amnesty. As Congressman Steve King said on Twitter Monday morning, they don’t want to “pardon lawbreakers.” They not only think mass deportation is feasible, they think it’s a must. If getting something passed that a leftist President of the United States was willing to sign into law is Rubio’s goal, then he was never going to win over these people no matter how he approached the issue from there.

The jury is still out on the third and final group, and this is the group Rubio cannot afford to lose if he has any hopes of being the 2016 nominee. These people are mostly principled conservatives who believe in the rule of law, as well as national security/sovereignty. At the same time, they either don’t think mass deportations are feasible and/or moral given how entrenched some of the families in question are. They’re also concerned about the GOP’s much-discussed Hispanic problem, but they also vehemently opposed McCain-Kennedy in 2007. Therefore, the main reason these people would be willing to go along with Rubio’s risky gambit here is their belief in Rubio himself.

This is why I’ve been following how he’s approaching the issue so closely, because for this third and decisive group the issue isn’t the issue at this point. The issue is Rubio, and the question is do you really believe he’s the transformative leader you’ve been told that he is, or are we falling yet again for another amnesty banana in the tailpipe?

Put it all together and it’s clear this will either make Rubio a future President of the United States, or yet another tombstone in the graveyard of lost conservatives hoodwinked by the beltway culture.
_________________________________________

You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.

Coulter: Rubio’s Amnesty a Path to Oblivion for GOP

/0 Comments/in , /by

Apart from finding out that Barack Obama did far worse in his re-election than nearly any other incumbent who won re-election, the only thing that perked me up after Nov. 6 was coming across a Time magazine published after the 2004 election, when George W. Bush won a second term.In the mirror image of all the 2012 post-election analyses, the Democrats were said to be finished, out of ideas, hopelessly unpopular. It’s like watching MSNBC, with the word “Democrats” replaced with “Republicans.”

Democrats had thrown everything they had into beating Bush, crushing the Howard Dean wing of their party and running a moderate — a Vietnam veteran, no less! They had George Soros, Michael Moore and Code Pink working like fiends to topple Bush.

Still, they lost to an incumbent. As Time noted, the Democrats had “lost five of the past seven presidential elections.”

But the pendulum swings. The Democrats came roaring back in 2006 and again in 2008. There’s no reason Republicans can’t do the same, unburdened by having to run against an incumbent in 2016.

Unless Marco Rubio has his way.

Read more from this story HERE.

School Choice: The Key to Saving the Nation?

/3 Comments/in , /by

The hopes and needs of children are clearly evident when charter, or pilot schools become available in school districts.

Lines, sometimes blocks long, of applicants eager to give their children a better shot at an education can be seen. Unfortunately, there are a limited amount of openings compared to the overwhelming demand by parents desperate to get their children a better education. These scenes, repeated around the country, are heartbreaking, but at the same time gives a sense of hope, that something is being attempted to shake up the government education system

This week is National School Choice Week. It is being celebrated throughout our country with over 3,500 events honoring the change that can transform our education system into one of the finest in the world…But it will take courage to change the status quo.

In honor of School Choice Week, I talked to Jeff Reed, communications director for the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. The Friedman Foundation has been spearheading school choice efforts throughout the country, working with new thinking Governors such as Louisiana’s Bobby Jindall and Wisconsins Scott Walker, in turning around a failing government education system.

Jeff shared many positive developments with me, as school choice starts to take hold around the country. See this map of where school choice is being implemented.

Parents love the freedom, when offered, to take a voucher to a private, or alternative school for the chance of a better education for their children.

Many Governors and Mayors love the idea of vouchers not only for the freedom of choice they offer, they love it because it can save them huge amounts of money. Sometimes the cost of a voucher for a student to enroll in a private school is ½ the cost of the public school. That can add up to substantial cost savings to states and cities struggling to keep their heads above water.

Additionally, when school choice is introduced into a state or district, through vouchers, tax credits, savings accounts, etc…It brings competition, which is lacking in the public school system.

But John Norquist, Democratic mayor of Milwaukee from 1988 to 2004, had a unique perspective on school choice and how it can restore our cities.

Norquist wrote: “If a young couple moves to, say, St. Louis and chooses a home in one of the city’s revitalizing neighborhoods, everything goes well until their first child approaches school age. They might decide to pay for private education at one of the few such schools in the city. Or they might take a chance on getting into one of the city’s elite magnet schools. But what looks like the surest way to enroll their child in a good school is to move to a suburb.”

He goes on with: “Although the couple enjoys urban life in St. Louis, they leave for better school opportunities. This process occurs all across the country; many parents with resources move away from cities and suburbs where poor people live.”

The lack of quality education choice leads to the further decay of our big cities and urban areas. Mr. Norquist believes “many more, including middle-class parents, would live in economically and racially diverse cities once school choice was universally available.”

When you hear a leader of the top public education union and fiercest foe of education choice say: “Union dues, not education, are our top priority,”…..it is plain to see we have lost our way as a country and have failed our children.

Lets give all of our parents and children a choice when it comes to education.