An Open Letter To Marco Rubio: I Am Ashamed I Ever Worked On Your Behalf

Mr. Rubio,

I have read your opinion piece published on May 10, 2015. I understand that this is your opinion, but I am puzzled how you can hold these opinions and still claim to be conservative member of a party that claims to be supporting the Constitution.

Specifically, you claim that the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are essential to the protection of our “national security” and that we must continue these clear violations of our 4th Amendment and our Right to Liberty to keep us “safe.” To the contrary, with these “permissible” intrusions, we have seen a massive increase in power of government in general and the power of the executive in particular, increased control over the people, and a decreased respect for the Rights of the people throughout America. Faisal Shahzad, the Boston Bombing, and the Garland Shooting are clear examples of when the government was continually monitoring these “terrorists” and still allowed the violence to occur; so tell me again how critical it is to do away with the 4th amendment?

You claim that “Bulk metadata includes phone numbers, the time and duration of calls — nothing else. No content of any phone calls is collected.”  You contradict your own claims in the very next sentence: “The government is not listening to your phone calls or recording them unless you are a terrorist or talking to a terrorist outside the United States.” (emphasis mine)  What you are truly telling America is that the government IS listening to our phone calls AND recording them–but “trust us, it’s only when we think you are a terrorist.”  I’m sorry, sir; I cannot garner that much trust for my government–and you should not suggest you expect it.  May I remind you that on two separate occasions, the DHS and DoD have declared the definition of “terrorist” to be so broad as to include many within the Republican party!

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are…rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”  This report also claims “return of military veterans…could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. “ DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis Assessment April 7, 2009

“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” January 2013, DoD Training on Extremism

Knowing that these are the OFFICIAL definitions of a “terrorist,” how can you possibly expect Americans to trust this government with such a gross violation of our Liberties?

Your statement that “Despite recent court rulings, this program has not been found unconstitutional, and the courts have not ordered a halt to the program” is disingenuous at best and borders on complete propaganda.  Production of just one case contrary to your claims shows your dishonesty. I will give three:

On March 15, 2013, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston declared that the Patriot Act section 2709 “violates the First Amendment and the separation of powers principle…The government is therefore enjoined from issuing NSLs under 2709 or from enforcing the nondisclosure provision in this or any other case.”

On December 16, 2013, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon entered “an order that bars the Government from collecting, as a part of the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection program.”

On May 7, 2015, a three judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Sack and Lynch, along with District Judge Broderick, ruled that the National Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk is illegal, stating that “the telephone metadata program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates § 215.”

In these three court cases, we have seen that actions taken under the Patriot Act have been deemed unconstitutional and illegal, bulk metadata collection has been ordered to a halt, and the National Security Agency’s exercise of section 215 of the Patriot Act has been deemed illegal.

Mr. Rubio, you then try to justify these false claims by clarifying that “In fact, this program has been found legal and constitutional by at least 15 federal judges serving on the FISA Court on 35 occasions.” This is simply more propaganda intended to deceive the public. Who are the FISA Courts?

  1. They are federal courts appointed by the federal government whose only job is to review “applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.”
  2. “Most of the Court’s work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and due to the need to protect classified national security information.”
  3. Consideration of the Constitution is secondary to national security needs. (See Rule 5(a))

So let’s get this straight, Mr. Rubio: you expect the American people to be comforted by the fact that 15 federal judges, appointed by the federal government, whose rules and procedures by definition place national security over the Rights of the people, and whose judgments are held in secret with no accountability, have determined the government’s actions to be legal?  Tell me again how you believe in the bedrock principles of America. One of your flowery speeches quoting the founders while you pander to real conservatives who haven’t figured out who you are should do nicely.

You claim that “There is not a single documented case of abuse of this program.”  Not a single “documented” case of abuse in a system shrouded in secrecy, hidden by “national security” claims, conducted ex parte, protected with gag orders? Wow! That indeed is impressive. I would find your argument more credible if you simply start yelling, “I AM OZ; pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, you young whippersnapper!”

Your Alinsky-like use of threats of future violence puts you in dubious company, to say the least. Don’t you guys get tired of trotting out some boogeyman to scare the people into trading Liberty for a false sense of security?  Every attack that gets through your vaunted dragnet is used by you as proof that we need to sacrifice more and more liberty. Somehow, we are supposed to believe that the reason some nutjob blows something up is that the people are too free!  Your opinion (demonstrated by your rhetoric) that the Constitution is outdated, that the founders were ignorant fools, is the very thing I labor to combat every day. I am ashamed of ever having worked on your behalf. You have been a sincere disappointment to say the least.

Here are some words that you, Mr. Rubio, should take to heart: “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”  John F. Kennedy

You, sir, are a cheerleader for the very thing JFK wisely warned Americans to guard against. I don’t care whether you call yourself Senator or President; your used car sales pitch for security is not worth my son’s Liberty. And you, sir, ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

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

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

The Weirdest Republican Candidate Merchandise

Here are some decidedly odd products for sale relating to the Republican presidential candidates:

1

There are some who say that Rand Paul fans are fanatics. I would never call them fanatics. I would just say that some of them like to go to sleep at night wrapped up in a giant photo of Rand Paul.

1a

Rand Paul flip-flops. I think the bottom of the left one (the “left” one, get it?) says “Cut the military,” and the bottom of the right says, “Build up the military! More drones, we need more drones!”

3

Ok, I’m guessing this dart board probably isn’t an official product from his campaign. Do you think they got that photo from drone footage? Just wondering!

4

Is Ted Cruz really hot? Perhaps a woman can speak to this in the comments section!

5

Ok, I’m seeing a LOT of ladies clothes here with Ted Cruz’s name on them. Is he some kind of Latino heartthrob, like a modern day Marc Anthony?

6

This is a bargain at only $500. Who would pay $500 for this? Do you think it’s valued so highly because it’s written in English?

7

Two comments about this: (1) It’s a paper plate. When you’re done with it, you crumple up and throw out Jeb Bush’s face. And (2), if you’re eating a medium rare steak, when you’re done, you have blood all over Jeb’s face. How weird is that?

8

We can only envy the inroads Bobby Jindal has made with the African-American community.

9

Ok, this is very weird. Marco Rubio underwear? As a man, I would feel more than a little homosexual wearing Marco Rubio underwear. They don’t look like they’re made for women; what kind of audience do you think he’s going after here?

10

A Chris Christie doll, stopping traffic at the bridge! Just remember, though, that this is a doll doing this; the real Chris Christie has no knowledge of it.

11

An interesting sticker!

12

I think this is Lindsey Graham’s #1 constituency. I just hope it’s not meant to be taken literally.

13

Ok, this is just weird. For one thing, Huckabee has a short Hitler moustache every day at 9 o’clock.

A closing note: I tried to find interesting products related to Scott Walker because, as many of you know, he’s my top favorite from my list of least favorites. However, all his products were decidedly ordinary and boringly normal. A harbinger of things to come?

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

Sympathy For The Devil – A Means To Destruction

There was once a story of a merciful captain of a ship. While a passing ship shot at the captain’s ship, the captain showed mercy and warned him not to shoot again. The ship shot at him again, but the kind captain did not retaliate. His “mercy” ended up bringing destruction not only upon himself, but all those on his ship.  By allowing the enemy to attack him twice without retaliation, the passing ship shot a third time and destroyed them all.

This is the story of the merciful, American people who tolerate the crimes of those who serve “We the people.”

As I have often said, “Soft judges produce hardened criminals.”

What it comes down to is: “Sympathy for the devil, the devil that means to destroy” (John 10:10).

To illustrate my point, here are a few headlines from across America.

“Wall Street Analyst Uncovers Clinton’s Fraud”

“Jeb Bush Destroyed Education in Florida – He Owns Common Core”

“Marco Rubio Announces Presidential Campaign Even Though He Is Constitutionally Ineligible”

Marco Rubio, who is constitutionally ineligible to be president, has also revealed himself as an establishment guy who sympathizes with the sodomites.

I wrote last week that the people advocating and attempting to legitimize these individuals are the very ones who are claiming to stand against lawlessness. However, they are helping give these individuals in government a platform.

These people put up politicians who are alleged to have broken the law over and over again through treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors against “We the people.” Many of these criminals have been in government for 20-30 years.

If you were to do what the American people have allowed government to do, you would be thrown in prison. In their hypocrisy, they strain at the gnat and swallow the big camel (Matthew 23:24).

As much as the press magnifies these corrupt representatives to legitimize them, I stand on the opposite end of the spectrum to show you from history that to overlook the crimes of these individuals will be to America’s demise.

I know that many in America today are led to believe that, for some reason or another, those who represent the American people are somehow above the law. Many Americans believe these people can do whatever they want, without consequence of transgressing the law which they swore to uphold.

Yet, when reading the Declaration of Independence, which many believe to be the preamble to The United States Constitution, I extract that our representatives derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Put into perspective the presupposition that God is and that He is the giver of rights, as the Declaration of Independence clearly proclaims. Our rights come from God, and the powers of the government come from the people. Here are some phrases found in that document:

  • “The Laws of Nature and of Natures God”
  • “That all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
  • “Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”
  • “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence”

When President John F. Kennedy stated, “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God,” it sounded like he took the time to familiarize himself with this country’s founding documents.

We can see that those who serve “We the people” bear witness to this very fact by placing their hand on the Bible and swearing on oath, both to God and man, that they will uphold the laws found within the “Empire of Laws” (God’s moral Law found in Exodus 20; The God of The Mosaic institution; Common Law). Furthermore, they pledge that they will protect such from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Knowing the above, I ask: where do the president, the Supreme Court justices, senators, and representatives derive the right to break the laws of God’s government?

They can all be removed through the impeachment process, as well as be indicted for their crimes against the people.

Article 2, section 4 of The United States Constitution reads: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This applies to The President (Barack Obama has at least 900 documented examples of lawbreaking, lying, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy & waste), Vice-President, and all civil officers (includes both the supreme and inferior Court justices, who hold their offices during good behavior). Our judges are to discover and apply written law, not create or legislate law (Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution).

These are not the type that can be saved; they are the type that must be stopped. America’s future depends upon it. Countries are destroyed for the lack of impeachment; and in many of these cases, indictment must follow impeachment.

Sympathy for the devil only goes one way. The devil does not play by the rules. He stands against them.

Where do you stand?

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

Marco Rubio: Homosexuality Is Something You’re Born With

Florida Senator and Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio has made waves in the last week regarding his stances on homosexuality and gay marriage. Previously, he expressed that he would attend a loved one’s same sex wedding because he would continue to love them, but also would do so while disagreeing with their decisions.

More recently, in an interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS News’ Face the Nation, the Republican candidate added that while he believes marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, he believes homosexuality is “something that people are born with.”

“I don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people,” Rubio said. “In fact, the bottom line is, I believe that sexual preference is something that people are born with.”

Rubio navigated the questioning carefully, trying not to ostracize anyone.

“It’s not that I’m against gay marriage,” he said, adding that he thinks state legislatures ought to be making decisions about marriage rather than the courts. “I don’t believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.”

Same-sex marriage and homosexuality are probably going to be two issues pushed hard by the left during the 2016 election, in an attempt to secure the LGBT community’s vote.

h/t: Business Insider

Are homosexuality and gay marriage national issues? Will the media perpetuate them? Let us know what you think.

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