The Dismaying RINO Co-opting Of Rush Limbaugh

The purpose of recent articles about RINO Speaker John Boehner and his supporters (herehere, and here) was to make clear that the biggest problem conservative voters face is betrayal by candidates who lie about what they will do if elected. Because the United States leans conservative, RINO conservative poseurs have the greatest need to lie in order to win elections. Apparently, this is still not clear.

On April 14, Rush Limbaugh effusively praised an egregious phony, Marco Rubio. The next day, Limbaugh astonishingly defended that praise with toxic acquiescence in preemptive surrender to contempt for the Constitution and rule of law.

Fool-Me-Once/Fool-Me-Twice

The gist of Limbaugh’s initial commentary was that Rubio is a “serious” candidate with a “powerful message.” How depressing! Where has Limbaugh been? How many times have true conservatives been betrayed by “serious” people who abandoned their “powerful messages”? Powerful messages mean nothing if never acted upon. Elections then become farces as meaningless as those staged by any totalitarian regime.

Marco Rubio is a painful case in point. The first thing he did when he got to the Senate was to give the finger to his supporters by trying to grant amnesty to alien lawbreakers, teaming up with the likes of Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Richard Durbin, and Charles Schumer — yes, Charles Schumer! (That’s the very same Charles Schumer who is a poster-boy for Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. The very same Charles Schumer so fanatically opposes freedom of speech for conservatives that he zealously advocates eviscerating the First Amendment. A shocking 48 senators supported his assault on the right of the right to criticize the left.)

Limbaugh repeatedly rails against bipartisanship and “compromise,” which, he correctly says, comes down to giving leftist Democrats whatever they want. Conservatives give; they take. In joining the Gang of 8, Rubio demonstrated that he is infected by this mindset.

Moreover, Limbaugh has often claimed to oppose both illegal immigration and amnesty for this law-breaking. He has argued it would be the death knell of often antonymous conservatism and the Republican Party. Yet he disregards the broken clear and well-documented anti-amnesty promises made by Rubio in order to be elected senator. Did Limbaugh believe the strident gaseous fulminations against amnesty emitted by John Boehner?

It was no surprise when Boehner caved in. By contrast, Rubio actively, publicly, and aggressively promoted the very amnesty he opposed as a senate candidate. Does Limbaugh expect a senator who breaks his promises on a major issue to be different as president? Does one have to be a proverbial rocket scientist to understand that pledges by a candidate with a record of insincerity and lack of integrity mean nothing? How often are conservatives going to let themselves be fooled by the faithless elected? Shouldn’t they declare that candidates who betray them on major issues will never again have their support, no matter what they profess?

Let this “powerful message” ring out: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!”

Let’s Make John Roberts an Honest Chief Justice

If Limbaugh’s initial Rubio praise was disappointing, his next day’s rationalization of that praise should appall anyone who believes in the rule of law and the Constitution. Limbaugh gushed over Rubio’s

prescient prediction …. in part an explanation for why he was participating in the Gang of Eight [amnesty bill].  …Rubio said that … if there is an executive [Obama] amnesty granted to millions and millions of illegals … he could not envision a new Republican president being elected and rescinding it. 

How can Limbaugh call “prescient” and “spot-on” a prediction about what a Republican president would do before any Republican president takes office? Has he turned from optimist to pessimist? Is he now on the side of defeatist hopelessness and despair? With this kind of thinking, there may never again be a Republican president–and it would make no difference if there were. Notwithstanding Limbaugh’s Republican cheerleading, conservatives are unlikely to vote for a candidate promising not to reverse his predecessor’s unlawful and unconstitutional acts. (On April 17, days after Limbaugh praised Rubio, the latter pulled the rug out from under the former by making just such a promise!)

If the coming contest for the Republican presidential nomination is to mean anything, primary and caucus voters should have a choice between RINOs who see anything done by a tyrant as a fait accompli and at least one candidate who unmistakably rejects the notion that tyrannical acts must be accepted as irreversible.

It has been argued that Chief Justice Roberts slandered American voters by suggesting that they voted for ObamaCare:

[O]ur Nation’s elected leaders … can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

The voters were given no choice prior to the imposition of ObamaCare against the wishes of clear majorities in poll after poll after poll. When they were given clear choices, in 2010 and 2014, numerous incumbents who voted for ObamaCare were ousted by opponents who promised to repeal or defund it. The promises were promptly broken, showing the futility of “throwing leaders out of office” and, hence, the futility of elections.

Isn’t making Chief Justice Roberts’ statement honest long overdue? Isn’t it long overdue for the Republican Party to give the voters a genuine choice by nominating an honest presidential candidate (or at least one not demonstrably dishonest)?

An honest Republican nominee would elevate this issue above all others: whether to ratify or reject lawless and unconstitutional tyrannical presidential malfeasance.

Encouraging and Defending Lawlessness

The essence of Limbaugh’s Rubio defense is that it would be unimaginable to take away unlawfully and unconstitutionally acquired plunder. That is contrary to the bitter lesson of ObamaCare. It was never inconceivable to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to unconstitutionally deprive millions of their doctors and insurance. What was inconceivable to them was to tell the truth about it. Amnesty is doubly offensive. First, illegal aliens broke the law to get ahead of law-abiding potential immigrants. Second, Obama violated both the law and the Constitution to grant them amnesty.

Limbaugh advanced his defense of Rubio’s amnesty betrayal on tax day, April 15, when millions of Americans were having lawfully acquired money and property confiscated by government — in order to bestow unmerited benefits upon those for whom Limbaugh and Rubio contend it would be inconceivable to cease providing.

It is, of course, no surprise that the Supreme Court has expressed contempt for those who follow the law in good faith. When a retroactive change in law relied upon by Jerry W. Carlton cost him over $600,000 (page 39), the Court effectively declared him to be a fool (33, 34):

Tax legislation is not a promise, and a taxpayer has no vested right in the Internal Revenue Code. ….a taxpayer should be regarded as taking his chances of any increase in the tax burden which might result from carrying out the established policy of taxation. [Internal quotation marks omitted.]

Going further, five justices have not found it inconceivable to throw an 88-year-old lower middle class lady out of the only home she ever lived in. They unconstitutionally approved government confiscation of that privately-owned property not for “public use,” but to turn over to a huge corporation for private use. (The corporation ultimately abandoned it.) Now, frequently corrupt local politicians can seize lawfully-held private property from the less well-off and turn it over to influential private parties, often much better off, who did nothing to deserve it.

Right now, the Supreme Court is considering whether government bureaucrats may “constitutionally” steal raisins from private citizens who lawfully produced them.

If the Limbaugh/Rubio view prevails, nothing can be done by Americans to avoid living in a country where, with the approval of any five U.S. Supreme Court justices, tyrannical and corrupt government officials, often unelected, can confiscate what ordinary people lawfully obtain and earn on their own–and prevent use of the doctors and insurance obtained by responsible individuals.

In sum, the United States would be a country where people are penalized for responsibly complying with the law and rewarded for breaking the law. Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, some might have been unable to “envision” that.

Can there be greater invitation to lawlessness and unconstitutionally despotic actions by government officials, as well as by ordinary people, than to say that it would be unthinkable to take away anything unlawfully or unconstitutionally obtained? Such actions would never be undone, regardless of what voters want. That is the import of a Rubio presidency. Voters should think long and hard about whether they want to elect a president who won’t reverse what a prior president had no constitutional right to do in the first place. We have already seen the consequences of electing Republicans promising to repeal or defund Obamacare, only to shrink from the task in cowardly fear. So far, contrary to Chief Justice Roberts, “throwing the bums out” is no meaningful choice at all.

Are Conservatives Gullible Turtles?

An example of the fool-me-once adage is the ancient parable of the turtle and the snake. A snake persuades a turtle fearing a lethal bite to give him a ride across a river, arguing that for the snake to bite the turtle would cause the snake to drown along with the turtle. Whereupon, the snake bites the turtle with poisonous venom, explaining that he could not help himself because he was, after all, a snake–and that was his character.

Conservatives are almost benumbed by the bad faith of those who deliver “powerful messages.” Nevertheless, the primary 2016 goal of conservatives must be to seek the candidate who is least likely to betray them. Although there can never be 100% guarantees, at a bare minimum, they cannot be turtles succumbing to smooth-talking snakes.

Of course, a candidate with a conservative message must be sought. It is to be expected that anyone seeking the Republican presidential nomination will at least repeat conservative lines. But that should be just a start. It is much more important to find someone with a record of honesty and integrity. Not just important, but critical — critical because the next election will probably be the last chance to repel the relentless march toward complete leftist tyranny.

Flip-floppers and promise-breakers need not apply and must be rejected if they do. Conservatives must exclude from consideration anyone with a proven record of major dishonesty.

Conservatives must exclude Marco Rubio.
Copyright © 2015 by Lester Jackson, Ph.D., a former college Political Science teacher who views mainstream media suppression of the truth as essential to harmful judicial activism. His recent articles on the U.S. Supreme Court, capital punishment and American Politics are collected here and here.        

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

John Boehner Did Not Gain Any New Conservative Fans After Calling This Couple ‘Good People’

House Speaker John Boehner sat down for an interview with Bloomberg Politics recently to discuss the scandal regarding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send and receive official emails during her time as secretary of state.

“She violated the law,” Boehner insisted, “and the idea that she was going to use her own server and do official business on it goes against every transparency issue that the president likes to tout.”

When asked what policy she violated, he responded that she would have had to “sign a sheet when she got there that she was going to preserve all of these records. At some point, they just can’t ignore the fact that there are a lot of public documents on this server that the American people have a right to see; and we believe it is time for Mrs. Clinton to turn that server and all its documents over to the IG – the inspector general – at the State Department.”

He confirmed that, if Clinton refuses to cooperate, “all options are on the table” – including a House subpoena.

“It’s important for the American people to know the truth about what happened in Benghazi,” he said, “and it’s important to know what was going on at the State Department before, during, and after the events that occurred in Libya.”

Boehner’s palpable irritation dissipated somewhat, however, when he was asked whether Bill and Hillary Clinton are “ethically and morally fit to return to the White House.”

He replied that the Clintons are “good public servants” and “good people,” acknowledging that “there are questions that have to be answered.”

Do you think Hillary Clinton should release the contents of her server? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Report: John Boehner Set To Open Investigation Into Hillary Clinton Emails

Hillary Clinton

According to reports, House Speaker John Boehner is expected to announce a new investigation later this week into Hillary Clinton’s email during her time in charge of the State Department.

ABC News first reported the news during the “This Week” Sunday news program. The former first lady is under fire after reports that she used personal email accounts on a private server based out of her Chappaqua, New York, home.

At a press conference in New York last week, Clinton asserted it was out of “convenience” she used a private account rather than one provided by the federal government. “I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously it hasn’t worked out that way,” Clinton told reporters.

The former secretary of state reportedly deleted about 31,000 emails she deemed to be personal and submitted more than 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department as per the Federal Records Act.

Clinton also said she went “above and beyond” what the law said for compliance regarding the preserving of her emails.

Daniel Metcalfe, the founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy (OIP), had a different point of view. “What she did was contrary to both the letter and spirit of the law,” he told CBC News last week. Metcalfe helped four different administrations, including the Clinton administration, interpret the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

“There is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act,” he continued.

Democratic strategist James Carville, a Clinton confidant who helped engineer Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, said on the “This Week” panel Sunday that Hillary Clinton “didn’t want [Rep] Louis Gohmert [Republican from Texas] rifling through her emails.” Carville also contended the investigation into the emails “amounts to nothing but a bunch of people flapping their jaws about nothing.”

h/t: X Tribune

Share this if you support an investigation by the full House of Representatives. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What This Likely Presidential Contender Just Said About Emailgate Raises The Heat On Hillary

Hillary Clinton Press Conference

Did Hillary Clinton break the law with her email practices during her tenure as President Obama’s secretary of state? One prominent lawmaker says she did, as the Clinton camp tries to put out fires that threaten to scorch her presidential ambitions.

With Hillary Clinton’s spokespeople scrambling to revise the explanation about deleted emails, the House is poised to launch an intense investigation of how the former secretary of state handled her electronic communications.

Fox News reports that the Clinton camp late Sunday changed its story about how the decision was made to delete tens of thousands of emails from the private server Mrs. Clinton used exclusively while in charge of U.S. diplomacy for the Obama administration.

As Western Journalism reported last Friday, numerous media outlets criticized the apparent way the decision to delete had been made without an actual human review of the emails to be destroyed.

Time magazine was among the news organizations questioning how the contents of more than 30,000 emails could have been fully known without anyone actually reading them before they were wiped off the server.

Now, as Fox News notes, a Clinton spokesman has “clarified” the earlier statement about the deleted emails, claiming that Hillary’s team individually read every one to determine they were not related to Mrs. Clinton’s government duties.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill made the clarification in a written statement to Fox News. This comes after the former secretary of state’s office revealed last week that while more than 30,000 “work-related” emails were turned over to the State Department, nearly 32,000 were deemed “private” and deleted.

The first major Republican lawmaker to call Mrs. Clinton a lawbreaker has just spoken up. In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says, “I think she clearly broke the law” by using a private email system for her official State Department communications.

“Paul added that it’s unfathomable that no communications Clinton had on the private email address and server were classified—because, among other reasons, she was communicating via email with President Barack Obama himself.”

As for being able to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for her, in Sen. Paul’s opinion, “unlawful” activities, the likely 2016 presidential candidate says that won’t be easy.

“I think she’ll stonewall and she’ll stonewall and she’ll try to prevent any release of any of the emails, but I think there needs to be an independent investigation.”

Rand Paul may be skeptical about getting to the bottom of the emailgate scandal because of Hillary Clinton’s likely “stonewalling,” but House Speaker John Boehner will apparently try to discover the truth.

ABC News reports that Boehner is expected to announce a new investigation into the former secretary of state’s email practices and her following of State Department rules and regulations about preserving and handing over to the government any and all communications related to official business.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Boehner Calls Out Senate Democrats For Their Refusal To Act

Flickr/Talk Radio News Service

In a recent reaction to the House of Representative’s move to fund the Department of Homeland Security while halting Barack Obama’s executive action on illegal immigration, House Speaker John Boehner was quick to tout the effort. He also noted, however, that the House cannot pass the funding bill on its own.

“We won the fight to fund the DHS and stop the president’s unconstitutional actions,” he said. “Now it’s time for the Senate to do their work.”

Boehner specifically called out Senate Democrats who have repeatedly worked to prevent the legislation’s passage.

“In the gift shop out here,” he said, “they’ve got these little booklets on how a bill becomes a law. Why don’t you go as the Senate Democrats when they’re going to get off their a—and do something other than vote no?”

The Senate’s top Democrat, Harry Reid, responded to Boehner’s accusation through a spokesperson, criticizing the use of profanity in his statement.

“We know Speaker Boehner is frustrated,” Adam Jentleson said, “but cursing is not going to resolve the squabbling among Republicans that led to this impasse.”

Though many Americans responded positively to Boehner’s direct admonition, others described the statement as the rhetorical flourishes of an ineffective speaker.

“A do-nothing obstructionist Republican telling someone else to ‘get off their a$s?’” one reader wrote in response to a Washington Times report. “That’s an absolute riot! Proving once again that rank hypocrisy is no deterrent to those lacking a moral compass.”

Some critics also shared the opinion that Boehner should not celebrate funding the DHS at all.

Twitter

Twitter

h/t: Washington Times

Do you think Boehner’s admonition was warranted? Sound off in the comments section below!

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom