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

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Major Pro-Privacy Right

After hearing evidence presented in two related cases, the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday decided that police officers must not be allowed to search the contents of a suspect’s mobile phone as a standard procedure without first securing a warrant to do so. This ruling stands in contrast to arguments made by the Obama administration, which suggest authorities should be allowed to view any and all personal information contained in increasingly advanced smartphones.

Those leaps in technological capabilities, however, are exactly why Chief Justice John Roberts believes cell phones should be off limits in a routine search.

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience,” he asserted. “With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life.”

Justices heard testimony from a variety of witnesses, including media representatives and libertarian advocates who contend that smartphones are basically personal, portable computers that should require a specific warrant prior to an officer’s invasion of such private data.

Roberts agreed, noting there is little similarity between traditional items – such as a pack of cigarettes – that an officer can search during an initial investigation and the huge cache of information contained in the average mobile phone.

He offered an analogy to transportation, noting that one could say that both a ride on a horse and in a rocket “are ways of getting from point A to point B; but little else justifies lumping them together.”

As Western Journalism reported, one of the cases leading to this decision resulted when a man’s home was searched after police determined from his cell phone that he might be involved in the sale of narcotics.

Ultimately, Brima Wurie appealed his conviction. Though an appeals court sided with him, another drug-related charge carrying a 20-year sentence was left intact. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision.

The other case presented prior to Wednesday’s decision involved a San Diego man who was linked to a number of crimes after police found evidence of gang involvement in his smartphone. Justices demanded the California Supreme Court to reopen the case against David Leon Riley.

Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service (Flickr)

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

Was Roberts’ Obamacare Ruling A Blessing, Or A Curse?





Photo Credit: McConnell Center Creative Commons

When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s Marxist bloc in ruling the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional, stunned conservatives immediately accused him of committing an “act of judicial cowardice.”  “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” wrote the supremely hypocritical Roberts as he shattered one of the first rules of judicial restraint by rewriting sections of ObamaCare from the bench. Although he refused to “protect” the people from a wanton abuse of power,  he was more than willing to protect DC lawmakers from the consequences of passing unconstitutional legislation.

But did Roberts manufacture his creative penalty-is-really-a-tax revision of ObamaCare for the purpose of bailing out the lawmakers who wrote the Act? Or was it actually his intention to help destroy them?

American Thinker contributor Bill Dunne believes that in his ObamaCare ruling, the chief justice set a “diabolical trap” designed to imperil Democrats, even as it “saved the Republican Party from going into a death spiral…”

It is Dunne’s contention that Justice Roberts’ decision spawned a “Great Awakening” of the American people by making it clear to them that “…ObamaCare [was] a civics lesson from hell, with vast implications for America’s future.” Had the Chief Justice sided with court conservatives, the disastrous effects of the Affordable Care Act would have disappeared along with the law. The largest tax increase in American history would not be taking place. Millions would not have had healthcare policies cancelled due to ACA mandates; premiums would not have doubled–or worse–thanks in part to unwanted coverages; longtime family doctors would still be available to patients; a non-functioning, $600 million website would not threaten to transform average citizens into “scofflaws;” identity theft would not run rampant; and some semblance of a right to medical privacy might still exist for the American public.

But the most important consequence of Roberts’ ruling is the fact that millions of Americans finally understand that “…[ObamaCare] has less to do with insuring the uninsured than with one political party’s lunge for unprecedented power and control over people’s lives.” The utter contempt for individual rights, which is the hallmark of DC Democrats, has at last been revealed to any interested American. And the fact that healthcare may no longer be affordable or available interests one Hell of a lot of us.

Did Roberts assume the role of visionary by finding the ObamaCare mandate constitutional? After all, in spite of the happy faces assumed by party loons such as Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Senate Democrats like Mark Udall (Co) and Mary Landrieu (La) will likely enter Election Day 2014 from a position of weakness, dreading the possibility of THEIR vote being proclaimed the one that passed ObamaCare into law.

So was John Roberts a gutless traitor to the American nation and people? Was he blackmailed into finding the Act constitutional? Did he prostitute the Constitution in the hope of becoming an important part of history? Or did his purported act of prescience help to save the Republican Party from an historic collapse?

 

Photo Credit: McConnell Center (Creative Commons)





Why John Roberts (Likely) Is Protecting Obamacare…





Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

On Monday, without comment (because he could not make a coherent one),  Chief Justice John Roberts denied a request by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA for a stay in the implementation of Obamacare. The groups had made their application last Friday, arguing that since the bill had been declared a tax by the Supreme Court (with Justice Roberts himself the deciding vote), and it had originated in the Senate (the Constitution says revenue bills may not originate), the law was therefore unconstitutional; and implementation of Obamacare  should at least be stayed pending further examination.

While there are other minor issues attached to the application that were also not addressed, the truth of the matter is clear: John Roberts will never do anything to derail Obamacare, no matter what arguments against it are brought before him.

There is very good reason to believe that regardless of the media’s skillful smothering of the story, John Roberts is being blackmailed to make certain Obamacare never falls in a Supreme Court case. The basis of this charge surrounds the fact that a series of strange (and probably felonious) acts are attached to the adoption of his two children.

In 2005, when they thought they were doing the Democrats’ bidding, the New York Times dug into apparently easily accessible records and found that the children Roberts and his wife adopted in “South America” started life as Irish citizens. This is a red flag. The laws of Ireland regarding adoptions are very clear: adoptions by non-citizens are prohibited, as are private adoptions.

Apparently, when the Democrats realized they could control a Supreme Court Justice’s vote through blackmail over his having committed a number of international crimes, the Times pulled back and dropped its investigation. The Democrat paper of record pulled back because it didn’t want to “ break the seal of an adoption case” – as if violating laws ever means anything to Democrats in their quest for power. Keep in mind Barack Obama’s violation of his opponents’ “sealed” divorce records propelled him to a US Senate seat.

What does the Roberts problem mean for the average American who looks to Washington for relief from Democrat oppression? It means we won’t be getting any relief from the Roberts Court, period.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

 





Another Republican Governor Does Something About Illegals

Joe Guzzardi, FloydReports.com

Last month, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed legislation (HB 56) that requires the use of E-Verify by all state employers. The law also gives Alabama some of the country’s strongest illegal-immigration enforcement tools.

Over the last decade, illegal immigration has increased in Alabama by 325 percent.

In a statement that underlines how over-immigration hurts American workers State Senator Scott Beason, a HB 56 cosponsor, said, “This is a jobs bill. We have a problem with an illegal workforce that displaces Alabama workers. We need to put those people back to work. That’s the No.1 priority.”

Another supporter, Republican state Rep. John Merrill said he didn’t hesitate to back the legislation because it is “good for Alabama” and will reduce illegal immigration into the state while “providing equal opportunities for all because who want to come to Alabama legally.” HB 56 requires all businesses, public and private, to begin using E-Verify effective April 1, 2012. Businesses that do not comply face suspension of their license and loss of employee expensing for state income tax purposes.

Other features of HB 56 will create misdemeanors for hiring day-laborers when Americans are available, failing to carry an alien registration card, producing fake ID and aiding and abetting illegal immigrants. It also will ban illegal aliens from attending state universities and colleges as well as prohibit sanctuary city policies.

In an effort to determine what the exact costs are of education for illegal alien children….

Read more.