The Final Constitutional Option

February 9, 2014 
By Robert Berry

Having been dormant for centuries, a potent section in the U.S. Constitution is now in the minds and on the lips of a new generation of reformers who are determined to keep the nation out of an abyss.  As America stares hard at the darkness ahead, the new reformers have begun to popularize this forgotten constitutional provision that might well become Official Washington's undoing.

The problem, which hardly needs stating, is that the federal government has become the very monster the founders anticipated.  Quite likely, the beast we face is far beyond anything that could have been imagined by the founding generation.  Even today it is hard to adequately comprehend the omnipresent and, thanks to the NSA, omniscient federal menace that overhangs every aspect of life in 21^st-century America.

The founders' concern that power would be consolidated at the federal level is dealt with in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. 

Author Mark Levin, in his blockbuster best-seller, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, based his ideas for reform on this less well-known means by which amendments may be proposed -- a process that entirely outflanks Washington's fixed fortifications.  Levin cogently argues that attempts at reform from within Washington are futile. 

Obviously, what is needed is a way to trump the Beltway ruling class from without. 

Enter Article V, which prescribes the amendment process.  Article V establishes the amendment process as a two-phase affair: proposal, followed by ratification of three fourths of the states.  The states have no way to ratify that which has not first been proposed.  From the beginning, the states have relied on congressional super-majorities to do the proposing.

But the founders knew that Congress would be loath to propose anything that would limit federal power, so they included a way for the states to propose amendments in an ad hoc assembly Article V styles as "A Convention for Proposing Amendments." 

The idea of using the amendments convention assembly has surfaced from time to time in U.S. history -- most recently in the 1980s, with the movement to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).  The effort peaked with 33 states passing resolutions -- just one shy of the required two-thirds of state legislatures, which would have compelled Congress to issue a call for the amendments convention.

That's when the effort took a bizarre detour -- into oblivion.

The BBA advocates of the 1980s, including then-President Reagan, were decidedly of the political right.  The last thing anyone in the movement expected was for "friendlies" from elsewhere on the right to object to the idea in near hysterics as a plot to render the Constitution null and void.  The unlikely opponents, while not necessarily opposed to a BBA, condemned in no uncertain terms the use of the amendments convention to propose it.  It quickly became evident, from the critics' rhetoric, that they had conflated the Convention for Proposing Amendments assembly with a so-called plenary (full authority) Constitutional Convention. 

BBA advocates attempted to clarify the difference between the types of conventions by pointing out that, as sovereigns, the states have never needed permission from the Constitution to call an actual Constitutional Convention.  Indeed, the only reason to invoke Article V would be to self-limit the convention's authority to "proposing amendments," as the assembly's name indicates. 

Even more restrictive was the scope of the states' resolutions, which sought to limit discussion to the consideration of a single amendment -- a BBA.  The argument was that, during the amendments convention, if a majority of the states, each represented by a delegation of state legislators, voted for a BBA, the proposal would be transmitted to Congress and then to the states for ratification -- just as every other amendment proposal in U.S. history. 

The BBA advocates argued that if the delegates were to propose anything other than a Balanced Budget Amendment, Congress would be barred from forwarding the proposal to the states. 

The critics would have none of it.

In appeals to the public, the critics insidiously left out any mention of the ratification process by three fourths of the states -- the implication being that once the proceedings began, there was nothing that could be done to hold it back when, inevitably, extreme elements moved to dissolve the Constitution.  When challenged on this, the foes weaved the assertion into their conspiracy theory, adding that the out-of-control assembly would simply declare its own sovereignty and dispense with the ratification process altogether! 

As preposterous as this notion was, the accompanying slogan was more effective: "We don't need a new Constitution!"  Gobsmacked, the BBA proponents could only look on as state legislators made for the tall grass.  One by one, states began rescinding BBA resolutions. 

As a postscript to this sad chapter, it should be noted that by the late 1980s, the national debt had just topped $2 trillion.  An effective BBA at that time could have stopped the bleeding that, by any objective measure, has become an existential threat. 


The Professor


In 2009, an academic from the University of Montana was surveying opportunities for research.  Of particular interest to Professor Robert G. Natelson were areas of constitutional scholarship characterized by a scarcity of research, poor research, or, optimally, both.  

Intrigued by the vestigial Convention for Proposing Amendments mentioned in Article V, Natelson was 
struck by the paucity of modern-day scholarship on the topic despite an abundance of original source material.

Quietly, he set to work.

Before long, Natelson had acquired nearly all of the journals of founding-era conventions.  This was added to his existing collection of material from each state's ratification convention as each considered whether or not to approve the proposed 1787 constitution.  A picture of early American convention tradition began to emerge. 

Casting a wider net, he pulled in over 40 generally neglected Article V court decisions, some of which had been argued before the Supreme Court.  In a series of publications, Natelson churned out his findings (here, here, and here), which surprised many -- including himself. 

The research quickly became the gold standard of scholarship about the process, known formally as the "State-Application-and-Convention" method of amending the Constitution. 

Natelson held that, far from being a self-destruct mechanism, the founders meant for the process to be used in parallel to the congressional method as yet another "check and balance" within the framework of the newly constituted federal government.

Most importantly, Natelson drew a strong distinction between the assembly mentioned in Article V and the oft-mentioned Constitutional Convention.  For this reason, he is quick to correct anyone mistakenly referring to the Convention for Proposing Amendments as a "Constitutional Convention." 

Natelson's research trove smashed the conspiracy theories of the 1980s and has become the intellectual base of the resurgent Article V movement that has been joined by Levin and other prominent reformers.  When the history is written, it will record that this was the moment the Article V movement achieved critical mass. 

The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past.  Having been marginalized to an almost comic degree, the foes of yesterday have been effectively dispatched.

When a battle is won, it is wise to move to the next battle, for the waiting opponent is formidable and lives on Capitol Hill.


Robert Berry writes about economic and constitutional matters and is the author of Amendments Without Congress: A Timely Gift from the Founders and Constitutional Coup: America's New Lease on Liberty.  Bitcoin address can be found here.

American Thinker

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials told Obama it was an ‘attack,’ not video or protest

By Pamela Geller

January 14, 2014

 So it is even worse than we thought, and what we thought it was impeachable. And Hillary was culpable as well. She must be stopped in 2016.

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials – headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show

Did the NY Times know that this story was about to break? Is that why they peddled that piece of fiction claiming that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the jihadi attack on our people and our consulate?  It was a stunning and unrecoverable blow to a compromised and dying institution.

Not one week after the September 11th attacks on our consulate, Obama stood before the world at the UN and said,“the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” Obama said this knowing that the murder of our people and the attack on our consulate was in the cause of Muhammad. It. is. devastating.

The day after the attacks, Obama schooled us on mandatory adherence to the sharia:

Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Off topic but related, the Obama administration targeted the reporter of this story. The Justice Department monitored and spied on James Rosen. The Washington Post reported the level of  intensity: the Justice Department labeled Rosen a “co-conspirator”.

Imagine naming a reporter for doing his job. But Muslim Brotherhood groups named actual co-conspirators in the biggest terrorist funding trial in American history (like CAIR, ISNA, ICNA et al) remain at large, just like the Benghazi slaughterers.

“The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest,” James Rosen, Fox News, January 13, 2014

 Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”

Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.

“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

The transcript reads as follows:

WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”

HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”

WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”

HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.
 
Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?”

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

Ham’s declassified testimony further underscores that Obama’s earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.

The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation.”

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was a fight going on” at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir.”

WENSTRUP: “– on the United States?”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an “interim” report on the affair.

Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible — a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.

While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony.

“He is in the president’s Cabinet,” said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives – is that  the American people feel misled.”

“Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the
Heritage Foundation. “The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”

Neither Panetta’s office nor the White House responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.

Atlas Shrugs

Exclusive--Benghazi Victims' Families, Conservative Leaders to Boehner: Install Select Committee Now

by Matthew Boyle

 

 Three family members of the victims of the Benghazi terrorist attack and scores of conservative and military leaders are kicking off 2014 by demanding that House Speaker John Boehner install a select committee, Breitbart News has learned exclusively. U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.

In the letter to Boehner, which was delivered on early Monday afternoon and provided exclusively to Breitbart News, Sean Smith’s mother, Pat Smith, and uncle, Michael Ingmire, along with Tyrone Woods’ father, Charles Woods, joined the call for a select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. Other notable signers include former Rep. Allen West (R-FL), conservative leader Ginni Thomas of Liberty Consulting, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, retired Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, Freedom Center president David Horowitz, and scores of other military and conservative movement leaders.

“We write to express our grave concern over the failure of your House of Representatives to extract the truth from the Obama administration concerning the attack on our diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi, Libya; and, the brutal deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Ty Woods and Glen Doherty,” the coalition wrote to Boehner.

Specifically, a House select committee on Benghazi would be similar to the Watergate select committee formed in the U.S. Senate during the scandal that took down President Richard Nixon. It would be a focused committee with members from both the Democrat and Republican parties and staffed with the proper resources to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter. Thus far, Boehner has had five separate House committees investigating the matter that have not succeeded. He has also publicly opposed the creation of a select committee, saying he does not think it is necessary.

There is currently a bill in the House of Representatives, H. Res 36 from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), that would create such a committee. It has, including Wolf, 179 cosponsors according to the Library of Congress, well more than the majority of the House GOP majority--which is 232 Republican members strong. Yet, despite the overwhelming support from the House GOP conference, Boehner continues to refuse to allow a vote on the installation of a select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal and continues to block efforts to bring the bill forward.

Now that this new coalition is stepping forward, Boehner may end up facing enough pressure to force him to create the committee.

The letter's signers are demanding Boehner install a select committee to investigate what happened. They argue that Boehner’s unwillingness to create an official investigative body has benefitted President Barack Obama’s administration, as it has taken advantage of the lack of focus in House investigations.

“To date, five (5) different committees of the House have conducted separate hearings, uncovering information in a piecemeal fashion lacking professional investigators,” the coalition wrote to Boehner. “The five committees’ efforts are disjointed and uncoordinated. The Obama administration has benefited from that dysfunctional process to hide the truth."

"Hardly any Obama administration witnesses have testified – publicly or privately," they continued. "You have resisted repeated calls for the creation of a select investigative committee with subpoena authority. It appears that you are satisfied to allow that state of investigative incoherence and ambiguity to continue. The last public hearing by any of the five committees was held in September – four (4) months ago."

"The families of the dead who fought valiantly to protect the mission and their families, the survivors, and the American people deserve better from you and your Members of Congress," the letter explained. "They deserve the absolute truth from their government. Your failure to get the truth and hold public officials accountable increases the possibility of other repeat attacks and additional failures to defend Americans abroad.”

The coalition argues that Boehner’s idling through the investigative process has led to things like a recent New York Times story which claimed that al Qaeda terrorists were not involved in the attack but that the attack was sparked by the YouTube video.

“On Sunday, December 29, 2013, the New York Times published a story concerning the Benghazi attacks that directly contradicts the sworn testimony of witnesses who appeared before various committees,” they wrote. “Besides the obvious New York Times editorial and political objectives of inoculating Hillary Clinton and her 2016 presidential campaign from further criticism of her failures as Secretary of State, the story contradicts objective truth and established facts in a way that confuses the public."

"Your inaction and failure to lead on the Benghazi investigation directly contributes to the repetition of lies; a lack of accountability from responsible government officials; and the political advancement of persons who seek to continue to ‘fundamentally transform’ the Constitution and our country," they accused. "The New York Times recent publication proves the Benghazi story is not ‘going away.’”

The group further argues that while Ahmed Abu Khattala, “a ringleader of the attack,” has “granted long interviews to reporters in Benghazi cafes,” the Obama administration’s federal law enforcement agencies have “done nothing.” Because of Boehner’s lack of willingness to aggressively investigate the terrorist attack, the coalition argues that no one has been held accountable. “Nearly 16 months after the terrorist attack, the American public has no accountability and no plan of action from House leadership,” they wrote. “The public is subjected to undisputed disinformation from a White House who calls the terror attack a ‘phony scandal.’"

"While the White House repeats false and misleading information, you continue to ignore claims, documented by Rep. Frank Wolf, of intelligence officers being intimidated with multiple, punitive polygraph examinations and harassing non-disclosure agreement demands," they claimed. "If Benghazi is ‘phony’ why are intelligence officers being threatened not to speak and subjected to polygraph exams? Why do you stand by passively?”

The coalition also questioned whether Boehner is holding up the investigation because he may be culpable for knowing certain pieces of information about the scandal. As Speaker of the House, Boehner is a member of what is called the “Super 8” in Congress. Other members include House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV); Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY); House Intelligence Committee Chairman and ranking member Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), respectively; and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and ranking member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). Because of their seniority in Congress, the “Super 8” gets briefed on intelligence matters in a much more intensive manner than other members.

The coalition questions whether Boehner has “guilty knowledge” on Benghazi because of that, and wonders whether a complete investigation into Benghazi would jeopardize Boehner’s political future as Speaker of the House.

“Some analysts believe your inaction and passivity towards getting to the truth concerning Benghazi is because you were briefed on the intelligence and special operations activities in Libya as a member of the

‘Super 8,’” they wrote. “You may possess ‘guilty knowledge.’ We recall how then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi developed a form of ‘amnesia’ concerning a documented briefing she received on so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ – later termed ‘torture’ for political purposes."

"Are you in the same position as your predecessor?" they asked. "Are you dodging a legitimate, thorough, coordinated investigation of Benghazi because it will damage your political position as Speaker?”

The coalition noted because no select committee with subpoena power has been installed, some members of the House GOP conference have taken to submitting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to attempt to get information about Benghazi out of the administration. “You should be embarrassed that members of Congress, and your own party, are forced to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with Obama administration agencies to get basic information about the Benghazi issue,” the coalition wrote to Boehner.

“What a sad and pathetic statement about the operations of House standing committees looking into this tragedy that FOIA has become the last resort of even Republican Members seeking the truth!" the letter stated. "Are you concerned that the scattershot and untimely efforts of the various committees may actually be doing more harm than good at documenting facts? These are all examples of Republican leadership failures. How are you accountable?”

The coalition continued by criticizing the efforts of Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and one of Boehner’s right-hand men: “Rep. Mike Rogers and the Intelligence Committee seem to act as defense counsel for the Obama administration,” the coalition wrote. “A recent Intelligence Committee weekly update note stated as fact that no arms shipments were being run from Libya, and that no intelligence officers were being coerced not to speak. There is substantial evidence to the contrary on both counts."

"Why does Rep. Rogers parrot the discredited falsehoods of the so-called ‘Accountability Review Board’ (ARB)?" they accused. "Conflicting accounts, testimony and evidence need to be investigated – not dismissed or ignored. Don’t those contradictions and questions compel you, on behalf of the American people, to take any action to resolve the matter and get to the truth?”

The group asked Boehner why there “was thundering silence” from his office when Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) sent him a letter on Nov. 6 outlining outstanding unanswered questions about the scandal. “You have an opportunity to show strong leadership and resolve a national disgrace perpetrated by specific public officials,” they wrote. “You are failing.”

“Your reluctance to lead and resistance to create a Select Committee on Benghazi must end,” they wrote.

“More than 75% of all House Republicans – with the conspicuous absence of those in leadership or committee chairmen – have cosponsored Rep. Wolf’s Select Committee bill. Few bills in this Congress demonstrate such overwhelming support from Republicans."

"Additionally, the bill enjoys the support of national security advocacy groups, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, among many others," they noted. "We urge you to bring the bill to the floor for a vote immediately to start effective oversight on this critical national security matter immediately. We have waited long enough. Your approach is not working.”

Specifically, the coalition demands that the select committee must complete its investigation before the end of the 113th Congress, which concludes at the end of 2014.

“Mr. Speaker, we call upon you to act now and create a Select Committee on Benghazi to investigate all aspects of the United States involvement in Libya, to include, but not be limited to the attacks of September 11, 2012,” they wrote. “It must now also include the protracted cover-up the American people, the families of the fallen and those with loved ones serving overseas have endured."

"The new committee must have subpoena power, capable staff and Members from both parties who are committed to finding the truth, not playing politics," the letter continued. "The Committee must be staffed with new, professional, qualified and experienced investigators. It must have resources to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation and issue an exhaustive report before this Congress adjourns.”

The full list of coalition letter signers includes: Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, USN Ret., former Vice Chief of Naval Operations; Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF, (Ret); Lt. Gen. Richard D. Lawrence, USA (Ret); LTG William G. Boykin, USA (Ret); Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, USA Ret, Chairman, Stand Up America; Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers, USA (Ret), Ranger; Maj. Gen. Thomas F. Cole, USA (Ret); Maj. Gen. Richard M. Cooke, USMC (Ret); Amb. Henry F. Cooper, Former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative; LTC Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) former Congressman, FL; Capt Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62, USN (Ret), Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC; Debra Burlingame, Co-founder, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America; Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness; Dick Brauer, Col, USAF (Ret), Special Operation Speaks; Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch; Allen Roth, Secure America Now; Joel A. Arends, Veterans for a Strong America; Ginni Thomas, President, Liberty Consulting; Catherine Engelbrecht, President, True the Vote; Anita MonCrief, Black Voters Alliance; David Wallace, Restore America's Mission; Dr. James Pollock, Maj., USAF (Ret), OIF VETx2, SOCOM, Wounded Warrior Congressional Advocate; John J. Molloy, Chairman, National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition; James C. Harding, Col USAF (Ret) National Spokesman for Veteran Defenders of America; Diane M. Sendlenski, Veteran US Air Force, Special Operations Speaks Coordinator; John G. B. Howland, Publisher, USNA-At-Large; Katherine Cornell Gorka, Executive Director, The Westminster Institute; Paul Caprio, Executive Director, Family Pac Federal; William L. Walton, Chairman, Rappahannock Ventures LLC; Sandy Rios, Director of Governmental Affairs, American Family Association; David Horowitz, President, Freedom Center; Peter Thomas, Chairman, The Conservative Caucus; Rear Adm. Hugh P. Scott, MC, USN (Ret); Rear Adm. Bill McDaniel, USN (Ret); Rear Adm. John A. Moriarty, USN, (Ret); Rear Adm. Robert B. McClinton, USN (Ret); Rear Adm. Don G. Primeau, USN (Ret); Brig. Gen. Michael Neil, USMCR (Ret); Brig. Gen. Francis Hughes, USA (Ret); Brig. Gen. John Zierdt, Jr., USA (Ret); Brig. Gen. Michael T. Byrnes, USA (Ret); Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret); Captain Kenneth Rauch, USN (Ret); Captain Peter A. Hewett, JAGC, U.S. Navy (Ret); Captain James Knight, USN (Ret); Captain Roger W. Barnett, USN (Ret); Captain Gregory Streeter, USN (Ret) USNA ’58; Col. G. Huntington Banister, USA (Ret), and former Acting Director, Selective Service System, 1994; Col. S. Badiner, USMC (Ret); Col. Gregory G. Raths, USMC (Ret); Col. Joseph V. Potter, USAF (Ret); Col. Rob Maness, USAF (Ret), U.S. Senate Candidate 2014, R-Louisiana; Dan Bongino, 2012 Republican Nominee for US Senate, MD; Lt. Col. Ken Benway, USA (Ret); Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney, USAF (Ret); CDR Randolph J. Horhutz, USNA '61, SC, USN (Ret); Everett Woolum, CMSGT, USAF (Ret); Gregory J. Rose, USNA ’73; Thomas Corboy, USNA, ’61; Anthony R. Papandrea, USNA ’61; Raymond H. Clary, Jr., USNA ’65; John W. Slagle, U.S. Navy Aviation veteran (Ret) Special Agent U.S.B.P. Anti-Smuggling Unit; Sarah Folger White, Former Presidential Commissioner; Dick and Patricia Schermerhorn, Appleton, WI; Lee Boyland, Author, former military officer, entrepreneur, nuclear engineer; Susan Creed Percy, Advocate for Military Families; Dave Hollenbeck, retired CA Highway Patrol; Paul F. Wirtz, Military family, OH resident; John Lillywhite, U.S. Citizen; Gene Andrews, U.S. Citizen; Mrs. Nancy Olbert, Supervisor Criminal Advocates, Daytona, FL State Attorney Office; Dr. Frank Ingels, Military Defense Consultant, MSIC/TETRA Office; Robert M. Trent, Senior Special Agent, USINS and former Marine and Vietnam combat veteran; and Kelly Monroe Kullberg, Christians for a Sustainable Economy; OH resident.

Big Government

Ice and Cold: Global Warming Believers are Today's Climate Deniers

by John Nolte

 Just this week we had dozens of Global Warming-believing scientists, who specialize in researching ice melt in Antarctica, run into a helluva lot more Antarctic ice than their research told them would be there. So much more ice that their ship and three ice-breaking rescue vessels were stuck in ten feet of it for days (two of the vessels are still stuck). As I write this, the big news of the weekend is a cold snap across much of the country with temperatures reaching 20 and 30-year lows. And yet, despite all of what should be good news, the Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change community is not celebrating.   Not only are Climate Change Truthers not celebrating, they are hysterical with worry that unexpected Antarctic ice discoveries and American winters returning to the normalcy those of us of a certain age remember, might hurt their religion crusade. The media is so worried they have coordinated a cover-up of the news from Antarctica and those of us pointing to what one might call the "science" of colder temperatures and increased Arctic ice are being mocked for doing so.

Granted, more ice in one area of a vast South Pole is not empirical proof that all is well in the Antarctic, but it is a great way to call attention to the fact that according to NASA, "In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record."

Who is anti-science now?

The chief of today's Climate Deniers is President Obama, whose second term will end up being "all about Climate Change." Despite all this good climate news, Obama still intends to circumvent Congress and use the Tyranny of the Bureaucracy to strangle the kind of industries that create solid middle class jobs. But don't worry, while Obama is killing good-paying energy jobs he will be rescuing us from income inequality that good paying energy jobs would help to solve.

There are all kinds of reasons not to believe in Global Warming -- the cover-ups, the media bias, the outright lies; the science just being plain old wrong; the absurdity of using a hundred-or-so years of data on a planet billions of years old;  the oh-so bizarre coincidence that the only solution to the "crisis" is to check off every item on the Marxist wish-list; the fact that Global Warming Believers live their lives like the rest of us instead of preparing for imminent catastrophe…

And let's not forget the oily shift in branding from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate Change…

Well, now we can add to this list the fact that the very good news of unexpected Antarctic ice, and a return to the kind of winter weather we experienced before this Climate Change hysteria began, hasn't so much as made a single Truther pause for just a moment to wonder aloud if this might be good news.

Instead, they are ignoring the science to double down on their denial and partisan bitterness.

Big Government

Duck Dynasty and a Christmas Creche

By Arnold Ahlert 

The A&E/Duck Dynasty circus and an effort in South Florida to denigrate a Christmas creche display are both driven by the same components. They are classic examples of political correctness run amok, coupled with the idea that the whiners of the world are somehow entitled to special consideration, even when that consideration amounts to nothing more than the tyranny of the minority.

Let’s begin with Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson. I don’t watch the show, I have never watched the show and, quite frankly, I find America’s obsession with so-called reality TV a bit depressing. To me it’s the equivalent of slowing down at an accident site, hoping to see some blood and guts, or at the very least, someone whose life has taken a turn worse than one’s own. In fact, I would submit that the primary reason for the public’s attraction to reality shows is a combination of voyeurism and “schadenfreude”. People like seeing what is ostensibly private, and they take a certain amount of delight in the notion that others, especially celebrities, are every bit as boring and screwed up as the average American.

And while it may seem that Duck Dynasty doesn’t fit that particular description, Americans would be naive to believe it was conceived by the suits at A&E to be an uplifting look at an unusual family. Make no mistake: it was supposed to be a har-di-har-har, “look at those stupid rednecks” putdown of American flyover country. Trust me when I tell you that no one was more surprised than those same A&E execs when it not only didn’t turn out that way, it became the smash hit of cable TV. They were surprised because they conflate bicoastal elitism with “superior” values. That attitude makes them virtually immune to the idea that millions of Americans might be laughing with the Robertsons and not at them.

Even worse? Those same Americans might share at least some of the Robertson family values.

Enter the infamous GQ interview.  Here are the three quotes that engendered a leftist firestorm:

1. “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

2. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. (Then he paraphrases Corinthians): “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” 

3. “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Note a couple of things. First, because Robertson’s personal opinions about sin and personal experience with black Americans don’t align themselves with leftist sensibilities, he was automatically branded a homophobe and a racist. Second, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers and the swindlers apparently haven’t organized themselves nearly as well as the militant homosexuals or the racial hucksters, neither of whom ever miss an opportunity to tell their fellow Americans what an irredeemably homophobic and racist nation we live in.

Equally important, both groups are willing to distort both the meaning and the intent of the above quotes to advance that narrative.

Here’s the short version of Robertson’s outlook: he believes homosexuality and a whole host of other things are sinful, and he had a happy experience with black Americans growing up. Everything else you’ve read and heard otherwise, every interpretation, extrapolation or “hidden” meaning presented as the “real” story is part of the aforementioned distortion. A coordinated, willful and orchestrated distortion by those who believe they own the franchise on what everyone should believe.

In other words, political correctness is nothing more than pure intimidation. And despite the nauseatingly endless professions of “tolerance” that emanate from the progressive side of the cultural divide, you either get with their program, or you’re a target.

Unfortunately, that’s only half the agenda. The other half concerns the leftist notion that tolerance and approval are interchangeable terms. That’s an absolute crock. There are plenty of things one is willing to tolerate in our pluralistic society. But the idea that tolerance must lead directly to approval—lest one become less of human being for failing to bridge that gap—is a bridge too far. It’s precisely that “sale” the left has endeavored to make for decades, and it represents the antithesis of a pluralistic society. It is nothing less than totalitarianism masquerading itself as enlightened thinking.

The ultimate manifestation of a truly pluralistic society can be reduced to four words: live and let live. You want approval for something? Go see your mommy—or your colleagues in whatever grievance group that’s been organized to collectivize your indignation

Which brings us to item two, a South Florida newspaper’s castigation of a town Mayor willing to defy the doyens of PC, and erect a Christmas creche on public property. “Our region takes pride in being a melting pot of religions and beliefs and nationalities,” writes the Sun-Sentinel editorial board. “People from all over the world come here to visit and live, and they should be respected.”

So what constitutes disrespect? Try this with regard to the city of Deerfield Beach and its Mayor Jean Robb:

Commissioners passed a law in October that allows no one but the city to erect holiday displays on city land. At the same time, the city said the Nativity scene that has long appeared in December at Fire Station No. 1 at Federal Highway and Hillsboro Boulevard would not be there anymore. They said they didn’t plan to add any more religious displays, and if they did, the entire commission would have to make the decision.

It was a smart decision, recognizing the separation of church and state and limiting the possibility of lawsuits against the city.

Ah, but Jean Robb would have none of that.

Last week, at her direction, the Nativity scene was again set up at the fire station, apparently without the approval of the rest of the city commission. And Robb was particularly insulting in explaining why the creche was returned.

“I really feel that no one should tell us how we should celebrate the most sacred occurrence on the Christian calendar,” she said. “Ninety percent of the people in the United States celebrate Christmas. The other 10 percent shouldn’t influence the way we celebrate our holiday.”

In other words if you don’t hold the same beliefs as Jean Robb, you probably shouldn’t feel welcome in Deerfield Beach.

Again, note a couple of things. The Nativity scene had “long appeared” at the fire station—meaning that for a long time, live and let live was the operative factor in Deerfield Beach, just as it had been all over the nation—for decades—before the rise of political correctness. Further note, that this rise has engendered one of two outcomes: despite the reality that the overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, these scenes either have to be removed completely, or every other religion and ism must be equally represented to the point of absurdity.

That absurdity was epitomized by the display at the capitol rotunda in Madison, Wisconsin where a 30-foot Christmas tree, a nativity-like scene that mocks religion and a Festivus pole occupy the space. “The rotunda is getting very cluttered,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. “But if a devotional nativity display is allowed, then there must be ‘room at the inn’ for all points of view, including irreverency and free thought.”

Much to her credit, Deerfield Mayor Jean Robb was having none of that kind of all-or-nothing nonsense.

Thus, the Sentinel concluded her attitude was “insulting,” even as it further insisted that one “shouldn’t feel welcome in Deerfield Beach” because there’s a Christmas creche sitting in front of a fire house—at Christmas time.

Oh, the humanity!

My letter to the editor was short and sweet: “Mayor Jean Robb’s rationale for erecting a Christmas creche was spot on. Those who are offended, or as the Sun-Sentinel editorial board suggests, ‘feel unwelcome’ in Deerfield Beach, need to get a life. As for the Constitution, the mayor didn’t ‘establish’ anything. And it’s freedom of religion, not freedom from it.”

I can only speak for myself, but I’m betting more than a few Americans are sick and tired of the whiners who think the rest of us should kowtow to their oh-so-delicate sensibilities, to the point where everyone from Satanists to Jerry Seinfeld fans should be accommodated in a Christmas display, or a single complaint about something should be equally weighed against the desires of an overwhelming majority of people. Those who insist that no one can prioritize anything, or profess to be “offended” by something like a Nativity scene have deeper issues. Many of those issues are animated by the simple reality that, despite pious professions of tolerance and inclusion, far too many of our leftist brethren aren’t happy unless they are making their fellow Americans miserable.

Last week the PC crowd and the whiners got shot down. Phil Robertson is back on Duck Dynasty, and the Christmas creche remains on display in Deerfield Beach, all the hang-wring and gnashing of teeth notwithstanding. Hopefully, it’s the beginning of a trend. Americans shouldn’t feel like they have to walk on eggshells regarding what they believe, no matter how politically incorrect. That’s what the marketplace of free ideas is all about. Nor should they feel beholden to those who bristle at the notion of live and let live, when it intrudes on their hypersensitive universe. The elitists and the complainers need to get over themselves. Despite every effort on their part, they lost these two battles for the simplest of reasons: a lot of Americans can still think for themselves.

Nothing angers—and frightens—the American left more than that.

Canada Free Press

2013 Year in Review: Tea Party Beats Washington

by Matthew Boyle

 

 The past year has by far been the best for the Tea Party movement in its short history. In 2013, the five-year old conservative grassroots upsurge has grabbed Washington, D.C. by the collar, tearing the city colloquially known as “Boomtown” in a conservative direction for the first time in decades. As the Tea Party movement matures, it is getting more professional in its political activism. The way the Tea Party won 2013 is by entrenching itself in Washington warfare and fighting for conservative victories by connecting powerful grassroots activists directly with lawmakers in decision-making positions. What has happened is the movement has matured, and learned how to manipulate the ways of Washington to promote conservative policies while defeating liberal ones.

In the short months after President Barack Obama’s re-election, a core group of conservative House Republicans--many of whom were elected in 2010 or 2012--developed a plan to attempt to unseat House Speaker John Boehner on the House floor. While the early January vote was ultimately unsuccessful, the 12 House conservatives willing to stand up to Speaker Boehner scared him as he began the 113th Congress.

That 12 of his own members were willing to vote against the Speaker was unprecedented in modern times, and given that only 17 votes were needed to actually remove Boehner, it put the veteran Ohio Republican leader on notice that any caving in 2013 would have drastic consequences for his future as Speaker. The narrative had been set: The Tea Party runs the House, and by extension, Congress.

Meanwhile, a little more than a month after Obama won re-election, Adam Lanza opened fire to kill 20 children and six staff members at Connecticut's Sandy Hook elementary school. Obama, emboldened coming off re-election, deputized Vice President Joe Biden to seize the opportunity to lead a push for gun control in 2013. Conventional wisdom in D.C. would have had most Americans believe that gun control was going to happen.

The left’s plan was to pass legislation out of the Senate, garnering some GOP support, then force Boehner to cave and push some kind of gun control measure through the House.

But the president’s allies in Congress did not count on three conservative U.S. Senators--two of whom were elected in the Tea Party’s 2010 electoral surge and one of whom was elected in 2012 --to stamp out their prospects of limiting Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) emerged to defeat gun control in the Senate.

How did they do it? They harnessed the power of the grassroots, energizing ordinary Americans while connecting the grassroots with their efforts in the Senate. Paul, Lee, and Cruz wrote to Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in early March 2013 to inform him of their intent to filibuster any effort to limit Americans’ rights as established by the Second Amendment.

Then, they rallied Americans against the efforts of the political elite using petitions and social media. While NBC News, New York Times, and CNN reporters inside the beltway wooed politicians in Washington into believing Americans supported restrictions to the Second Amendment, Paul, Lee, and Cruz systematically shut down the phony appearance of support for gun control and utilized Senate procedures available to the minority to kill any chances of a vote that would limit Second Amendment protections for Americans.

Grassroots leaders grew emboldened. Dustin Stockton of Western Representation PAC (formerly of TheTeaParty.net), for instance, hatched a plan to hold about 100 rallies in cities across America, and thousands of Americans lined up to come out to show their support for the Second Amendment. Stockton’s “Day of Resistance” rallies fired up the conservative grassroots against more than just gun control: they focused in on the Obama administration’s failure to tell the truth about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, their refusal to cooperate with the congressional investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, and the failure of Obamacare.

By early spring, Republicans like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) were ready to cave on gun legislation for months. Toomey even co-wrote a watered down gun control bill with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) that would have pushed for more stringent background checks--something that, if passed by Congress, would have been seen politically as a victory for the president. But, with the public firmly against any gun control measures and a cadre of three Tea Party leaders in the U.S. Senate willing to put it all on the line to defend Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, momentum for new gun control legislation fizzled.

In late December 2013, more than a full year after the Sandy Hook tragedy that Democrats attempted to seize to push gun control, National Public Radio’s Ailsa Chang reported that “2013 was a disheartening year” for gun control lobbyists. Chang’s report detailed how gun control groups now admit defeat and acknowledge that defeat came at the hands of the powerful grassroots across America.
Earlier in December, as Breitbart News’ AWR Hawkins reported, Biden and the White House signaled they will lay off gun control and focus instead on mental health issues.

Defeating gun control was hardly the only time the Tea Party movement has grappled with, and beaten, the Obama administration in 2013. Amid the beginning of the 2013 gun control fight, Sen. Rand Paul launched another Tea Party-driven offensive, this time against the Obama administration’s use of drones. Paul took to the U.S. Senate floor for an epic 13-hour filibuster that forced the Obama administration, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, to admit in writing that it did not have the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil with a drone.

Paul’s filibuster brought Tea Party-minded Senators like Cruz, Lee, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to the floor to back him up; after it became clear his bold move would spark a victory for conservatism and libertarianism in America against the Obama administration, GOP leaders like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined him on the floor. As such, Paul’s filibuster also meant something bigger than just another defeat of the Obama administration by the Tea Party movement: the GOP establishment was forced to rally around the Tea Party, rather than around leftists and Democrats.

Shortly thereafter, the biggest fight of 2013 commenced over immigration reform. Rubio had joined Democrats like Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Republicans like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) to draft a bill that would drastically increase legal immigration numbers to America and grant amnesty to America’s at least 11 million illegal aliens. Despite claims to the contrary, the “Gang of Eight” bill would not secure the border and would not result in an increased ability for America’s law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law.

Obama backed the bill and even sent White House staff over to U.S. Senate office buildings to help write it. Comprehensive immigration reform would have been seen politically as Obama’s big second term agenda item if it were to pass into law. It would be equivalent in scale and importance to Obama’s legacy and agenda as Obamacare has been.

Billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, and Paul Singer financed a campaign to push for the bill’s success. Big business allies like the Chamber of Commerce teamed with big labor interests like the AFL-CIO to attempt to force it through to final passage.

The bill was introduced in April 2013 to much fanfare in the media and cheers from the political class in Washington. Conventional beltway wisdom would have had most Americans believe the bill was supposed to pass the U.S. Senate much faster than it did, which it ultimately did in late June but only after conservatives debunked much of the talking points put forward by the Gang of Eight members.

While the bill actually did pass the Senate thanks to a rushed last-minute process by Reid and a fig leaf amendment from Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND), the appearance of popular support for granting any legal status to any illegal alien was shredded weeks before the Gang of Eight bill saw a final vote in the Senate.

Conservative workhorse Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) worked with Tea Partiers like Cruz, Lee, and Paul to diminish the establishment-created appearance of support for comprehensive immigration reform. Much like how gun control prospects were doomed by popular opposition to them, grassroots leaders like Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots, Leah Durant of the Black American Leadership Alliance, Rosemary Jenks of NumbersUSA, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, and many others brought the grassroots troops to the battle against amnesty. They worked alongside Sessions, Cruz, Paul, and Lee to fight to prove the establishment wrong on the intellectual battlefield of immigration policy and show the widespread American opposition to amnesty via rallies like Durant’s March for Jobs event in Washington and NumbersUSA’s and Tea Party Patriots’ various rallies around the country.

While it initially appeared that Boehner was going to cave after the Senate passed its immigration bill and allow a bill or series of bills to pass the House and go to conference committee with the Senate, the work of Sens. Sessions, Lee, Cruz, and Paul continued throughout the summer into the fall. House conservatives like Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Pete Olson (R-TX), Matt Salmon (R-AZ), and many more vocalized their opposition to any strategy by House GOP leadership to attempt to pass amnesty through the House or go to a conference committee with the Senate bill.

The conservative outrage knocked Rubio’s previously stellar polling numbers into the gutter, forcing him to reverse course and come out in public opposition to any conference committee that would be used to save the bill he helped champion through the Senate. Shortly thereafter, conservatives forced Boehner and the rest of House GOP leadership--save for House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is in the process of writing an amnesty bill at this time--came out in public opposition to any conference committee on immigration.

While the issue is far from dead--given the well-financed lobbyists driving for amnesty, and the political leadership pushing for it from both parties--the fact that no amnesty has passed the Congress whatsoever in 2013 is, as USA Today’s D.C. Bureau Chief Susan Page said, nothing short of an amazing victory for the Tea Party movement in America. Page said on CNN that the “biggest loser” in 2013 was “immigration reform.”
“That was the thing that was going to pass this year with the pathway to citizenship for the millions of people who are here as [illegal] aliens and that has not happened,” Page said.
After the summer’s push for amnesty faded into a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign with momentum waning, Sens. Cruz and Lee hatched their next plan: defund Obamacare.

Initially viewed by the political establishment as a pipe dream that had no chance of going anywhere, Cruz and Lee worked alongside House conservative members to organize a rebellion in the House. Conservative Republicans refused to vote for any stopgap government spending bill, a continuing resolution, that had even a single penny of funding for Obamacare. House conservatives like Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), Raul Labrador (R-ID), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Tom Graves (R-GA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and many more rallied around Cruz’s and Lee’s message. Boehner crumpled and reluctantly agreed to pursue the defunding strategy.

Martin of Tea Party Patriots, Brent Bozell of ForAmerica, and other conservatives leaders throughout the movement toured the nation to round up grassroots support for the effort. Cruz’s political stock skyrocketed less than a year into his first term in the U.S. Senate, as he systematically led an intellectual destruction of the president’s healthcare law.

Like Paul had done for 13 hours to target Obama’s drone usage earlier in 2013, Cruz took to the Senate floor for a 21-hour speech (although technically not a filibuster) to systematically prove Obamacare’s destructive nature. Grassroots support swelled across the country. Twitter exploded with the hashtag of Cruz’s main message: #MakeDCListen. Millions of Americans expressed support for Cruz, while Washington politicians bashed him; when he returned to Texas afterwards he received a hero's welcome. “After two months in Washington, it's great to be back in America,” Cruz said to massive applause.

After Democrats in the Senate refused to compromise on Obamacare and Senate Republicans failed to unite behind Cruz and Lee like House Republicans did, the government shut down. Even so, shortly before the 16-day shutdown began, Democrats like Manchin had publicly said they would be willing to compromise on Obamacare enough to support a year-long delay of the law.

While the fight to defund Obamacare was, like the effort to unseat Boehner earlier in 2013, ultimately unsuccessful, it showed that the Tea Party movement runs the Congress. Nineteen Senate Republicans voted with Cruz and Lee on the key cloture vote on the funding of Obamacare, effectively abandoning their leader Mitch McConnell, who had worked against Cruz, and all of House GOP leadership worked with the Tea Party movement under pressure from the conservative grassroots.

Meanwhile, Cruz, Lee, and the rest of the Tea Party were proven right about Obamacare time and again over the subsequent weeks as the rollout of the president’s healthcare law has been an abysmal failure. Obama’s claim that Americans could keep their plans if they liked them has been proven to be PolitiFact’s “lie of the year.” Americans are losing their healthcare plans in droves, and those who have been lucky enough to keep their plans have seen spikes in their premiums. Even people who wanted to sign up for Obamacare have run into difficulty as the program’s website has crumbled and Americans’ personal information is at risk because of security flaws in healthcare.gov’s coding.

Congress rounded the year out by passing a budget deal Ryan cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). The deal has infuriated conservatives throughout the base, and while it passed the House with a swath of GOP support--169 Republicans voted for it-- Ryan systematically misled his House GOP colleagues to win their support for it, as Breitbart News has shown time and again over the course of a series of investigative pieces.

The bill actually raises spending and increases the deficit and, according to Sessions, uses Obamacare-style double counting budgeting gimmicks to make it appear fiscally responsible. It also cuts pensions of military veterans to make it appear as though it does not increase spending as much as it does, something that is likely to be the first fertile battlefield of 2014, followed shortly thereafter by a battle over amnesty that Ryan will also likely lead.

Piece by piece, Obama’s agenda was stopped dead in its tracks throughout 2013. The Tea Party movement’s effectiveness has garnered it new enemies even among those on the right, with the Chamber of Commerce and business community developing plans to attempt to eviscerate it in 2014. This list of political and policy victories does not even include the impressive cultural Tea Party wins--from A&E's reinstatement of Phil Robertson on Duck Dynasty after originally placing him on "indefinite" hiatus under pressure from GLAAD to Brad Paisley's and Carrie Underwood's Country Music Awards performance of "Obamacare by Morning."

The question moving forward is whether the Tea Party can maintain its control of the conservative message and its stance against the left’s and the establishment’s agenda. At this point, it looks like the movement is just getting started.

Big Government

Happy New Year to All You Decadent, Dictatorial Americans

by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

 

 

 Happy New Year to all you decadent and dictatorial Americans.   Yes, I mean you, the people of the United States, where an elite of  non-democratic dictators trickles its immorality—and incompetence—down upon the masses. 

What do I mean?  Aren’t you Americans supposed to be free?  Sure, you are free: You are free to obey the ukase—that’s an old czarist word for a decree that must be obeyed, or else—of a judge acting on an ideological agenda.  So the judge is free to do as he pleases, and then you are free to do what you’re told to do.  Americans, how do you like that kind of “freedom”?  

For example, let’s look at the way the debate over homosexual marriage has played out over the past few years in the USA.  The American people were confronted with the issue of homosexual marriage, debated it, and then voted against it in the tens of millions; dozens of US states passed specific laws to ban homosexual marriage.  

So then what happened?  I’ll tell you what happened: Unelected judges simply overrode the will of the people—and legalized such marriage in much of the country, including the largest state, California.  In other words, the judges acted as dictators to overturn not only the laws of America, but also the law of God; these are spelled out clearly in both the Bible and in the Christian tradition.  

So now we see the key difference between Russia and America: In Holy Mother Russia, the Bible and Christianity are celebrated in the public square.  But not in America.  

To sum up: America has a dictatorship that imposes anti-Biblical immorality.   That’s your idea of freedom—and you can have it.  Here in Russia, we prefer real freedom: our right to choose the true path.  Our right to choose virtue.  

But of course, you Americans are genuinely free in one way: You have the perfect freedom to be bamboozled by your party-line media and so to elect and re-elect bumbling leaders.  In my recent musings, I have taken note of America’s staggering geopolitical incompetence, and mocked the messianic pretensions of your media-anointed President Obama.   And I chuckle when I think about how long it took for Americans to notice his obvious ineptitude.  

I have, indeed, enjoyed great success in 2013, even as America has failed greatly.  It was a wonderful year for me, starting with Syria, Iran, and Ukraine.  

In Syria, Hafez al-Assad is still in power.  Yet as recently as September, the Americans were poised to intervene to overthrow Assad; I turned the tide by jumping in to start negotiations over his chemical weapons.  In the months since, those chemical-weapons negotiations have turned into a larger “peace process.”   

I should say that I have never had any great affection for Assad; my main concern was about stopping the advance of Sunni Islamic jihadi terrorist takeover anywhere, whether in Syria, in my own territory of Chechnya, or elsewhere in the world.  

In the wake of 9-11, I had hoped that the Americans would share that larger anti-terror   objective, but alas, I was wrong.   The Americans have been fighting the Sunni Jihadis in Afghanistan for a dozen years, but at the same time, they have sought to help the same sorts of Sunni jihadis in Egypt, Libya, and Syria—go figure! 

Indeed, all these years, the Americans have been lecturing us Russians about “human rights” in Chechnya.  So it served them right when two Chechyans killed and wounded all those people in Boston; we had tried to warn them about the Tsarnaevs, but of course, the Americans thought they knew best.   Here’s what’s best:  America and Israel ought to join with Russia to squelch these Islamists, wherever they are.  It’s obvious!  But it seems that if you work in the American State Department, you have to leave your common sense outside of the building.   

Finally, late in 2013, my message started to get through to the anti-Assad coalition: The West woke up and realized that they, too, would be worse off with Assad gone and the Bin Ladenites running Damascus.  I see that The Jerusalem Post recently quoted a top Israeli diplomat as saying of a recent high-level meeting, “Our Western friends made it clear in London that Assad cannot be allowed to go now because they think chaos and an Islamist militant takeover would ensue.”   No kidding!  Finally!  Score one for common sense—and for me.  

Oh, and by the way, you Americans might be interested to know that Christians are much better off in pro-Russia Syria than in post-American Iraq.  That’s right: In Syria, Christians are part of the governing coalition; they are safe as long as Assad stays in power.  By contrast, in Iraq, after the Americans came and went, having wrecked the place in between, the Christians are abandoned and vulnerable.  Today, the US doesn’t seem to know or care that Christians are being targeted in Iraq—37 Christians killed on Christmas Day.   Gee, I wonder why Barack Hussein Obama is so disinterested.  Actually, I don't wonder at all.  

Next, Iran.  The no-nukes “agreement” spearheaded by John Kerry—I have never seen anyone so eager to win a Nobel Peace Prize!— might be a sham, but that’s not my problem.  I don’t want Iran to be a nuclear power; after all, any Iranian nuke would be a lot closer to Moscow than to Washington, DC.  Yet at the same time, I don’t want America to win.   

Instead, what I want is a balance of power.  And balance of power means just that—balance.  Uneasy balance, balance of terror, call it what you will.  Just so long as both sides realize that they need Russia’s help.  I want Russia to be the balance-wheel in the region.  

As for Israel, I am not a fan of Bibi Netanyahu, but I do feel a certain fondness for the million or so Israelis who come from Russia. Yes, they fled the Soviet regime in the 70s and 80s, so in that sense, they are traitors, but at the same time, they retain many of their Slavic loyalties and prejudices.  So when I talk to, for example, Soviet-born Avigdor Lieberman, the former Israeli foreign minister—and still a powerful political player in that country—we converse easily in our common Russian tongue.  In fact, we get along great, because we hate the same people.  

Moreover, I fully realize that the Israelis have assets that Russia needs.  In particular, if Russia is to create, near Moscow, a Silicon Valley for Russia, we will need some high-tech brains.   As my  sidekick Dmitry Medvedev has convinced me, the real resource for the future is not oil, nor natural gas, nor even gold.  Instead, it’s IQ, adrenaline, and caffeine—the stuff of high tech.   So that’s why I let Mikhail Khodorkovsky go free after a decade in prison—he’s a Jew; releasing him removes a sticking point to better relations with the Jews.  And that’s fine, so long as they are outside of Russia.  Khodorkovsky’s not coming back, that’s for sure; the $15 billion fortune he once had inside Russia has long ago been divvied up among my friends.   

Meanwhile, right next to Russia, I have won yet another victory: Despite the pro-European Union protests in Kiev, Ukraine will remain gripped in the Russian bear hug.  Needless to say, I have never been a fan of “people power”; we know what sort of trouble it can lead to if left unchecked.  Critics say we did something nasty in Ukraine; I say, we bought President Viktor Yanukovych fair and square.  And he had the honor—and, heh heh, the survival instinct—to stay bought.  

So that’s my geopolitical score for 2013: By my count, it’s three points for Russia, zero points for other countries.  

Yet there’s a deeper point that I wish to make, concerning the fate of nations, and of civilizations.   And that point is: You need conservatism, including religion and patriotism, in order to govern.   This point is not optional; it’s a necessity.  

I think that the average person gets this basic truth about the practical value of conservative governance—including the average American.  But as we have seen, the average American is not really involved in shaping politics; in the USA, control is shared by the radicalizing forces of the judiciary, the media, the Federal Reserve, and other elite institutions at the commanding heights.  Meanwhile, here in Russia, I have been governing as a conservative, and the average Russian loves me.  

Yet Americans, befogged by their own propaganda, have been slow to realize that I am the conservative, defending—indeed, championing!—the essentials of Christendom.

One who has figured this out is Patrick Buchanan, a leading figure in conservative politics and punditry for nearly half-a-century.  He recently wrote a column asking,  “Is Putin One of Us?”  

And Buchanan’s answer was a carefully argued “yes.”  As he noted, not only am I on the right, but also I see the overall civilizational issue more clearly than the West:

“While much of American and Western media dismiss him as an authoritarian and reactionary, a throwback, Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm.

As the decisive struggle in the second half of the 20th century was vertical, East vs. West, the 21st century struggle may be horizontal, with conservatives and traditionalists in every country arrayed against the militant secularism of a multicultural and transnational elite.

And though America’s elite may be found at the epicenter of anti-conservatism and anti-traditionalism, the American people have never been more alienated or more divided culturally, socially and morally.”

I agree with Pat—I guess I can call him Pat.  In America, the split is between a liberal elite and a conservative population.  I would only add that here in Russia, the elite is on the same side as the populace.  How ‘bout that: a government that actually reflects the values of the majority!  

Yes, I am a Russian conservative, and I govern as a Russian conservative.  Admittedly, I have had to make detours along the way: The Sochi Winter Olympics are coming up in February, and so I released those horrible “Pussy Riot” protestors.  In addition, I turned loose some Greenpeace idiots.   

Yet as always, I am amused by the greedy corporate hypocrisy of the West.   Even though Russia has passed tough anti-homosexual laws, all those allegedly “gay-friendly” companies are still eagerly doing business in Russia.   And they will spend even more money on the Olympics.  So now we see their true convictions; they worship money, not “LGBT” rights.   Do I expect some protestors in Sochi?  Sure.  And we’ll have to tolerate them when the cameras of the world are watching.  But we’ll be taking the names of those involved: The foreigners won’t be allowed back, and as for any Russians, well, we’ll deal with them in due time.  

Over the long haul, I am fully committed to a socially conservative Russia, built on the Holy Russian Orthodox Church.  Am I really a sincere Christian?  That’s hard to say.   Am I sincere social conservative?  Do I believe in order and structure?  Do I believe in Western Christian civilization?  That’s easy to say—absolutely yes.   

Why? Because I know that all through history, faith-based conservatism wins.  To put it another way, piety defeats hedonism.   When a culture gets too rich and lazy, it not only causes a backlash, it also becomes too weak to withstand that backlash.   How do I know this?  I study the past.  In the 19th century, the industrializing world was richer than ever, and yet the capitalists, who had claimed most of the wealth, had little legitimacy.  They weren’t longstanding royalty, well known to the nation; instead, they were nouveau riche, typically locked into conflict with the proletariat.  Factory owners must learn: Treat factory workers nicely, or they will strike—and even rebel.  

So in a sense, both Bolshevism and Fascism in the 20th century were reactions against the excesses and conspicuous consumption of those newbie capitalist plutocrats.   Say what you want about Lenin and Stalin—or Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao, among many others—they were personally austere.    They didn’t wear crowns and robes, they wore dark suits and uniforms.  Working people liked that, at least at first.  

And as income inequality is on the rise once again, and as big capitalists turn into greed-is-good Wolf of Wall Street-type parodies of themselves, please don’t think that the cycle of revolution can’t happen again, maybe even in America.  The American conservative Peggy Noonan, writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, quoted an anonymous but nervous billionaire: “Every time I hear the stock market went up I know the guillotines are coming closer.” 

But in Russia, such bloody revolution won’t happen again, because we are handling the social question.  We are working to maintain a balance between capital and labor.  That was one reason why I threw Khodorkovsky in jail, to send a signal to the other oligarchs: Behave yourself.   

So of course, I am perfectly willing to use repressive methods, if I need to.   Yet at the same time, I don’t think I will need to, because I am deeply respectful of Russian tradition; I am with the people, and their values, not against them.   And those values include a deep-grained belief that the body politic needs to stay together with some decent respect for the feelings and sentiments of the workers and peasants—and that’s a lesson of statecraft that the Americans have forgotten.   You can’t build a united country on the basis of dog-eat-dog Social Darwinism.  You need the warmth of an enveloping heritage.   Political hierarchy is fine, but there still must be limits, however notional, on social and economic inequality.  

So in Russia, I have been pleased to lead the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church, which proclaims its central dogma: All believers are equal before God.  To add some emphasis, we even have our shock troops, The Union of Orthodox Banner-Bearers.  They can be a little extreme, but we like their slogans:  “Holy Russia, the Orthodox faith and the Russian people!” That’s a good one.  Another is: “Glory to Russia!”   And for sheer intensity, it’s hard to top “Orthodoxy or death!” 

Meanwhile, in many parts of the world, especially in the West, it might seem as though the homosexuals and the drug-legalizers are winning—but I believe that’s temporary.  As I have said, all through history, we see a pattern: The rich have grown rich to the point that they stop believing in anything and thus are not able to fight for anything, not even their own survival.   So inevitably, they are replaced by strong men, whose lives are a proclamation of stern faith.  

We might consider the Muslims: Ask yourself, who is going to emerge as the winner in Afghanistan after Karzai goes?   A liberal?  Someone who hews to Western ways?  No, of course not: The victor will be the toughest guy, the one who was able to inspire the most martyrs, even as he rides in on a white horse.  

I realize that liberals—in America, they are called libertarians—are horrified by the prospect of warrior leaders, but I know my history.  Russia has had to recover from the invasion of the Magyars, the Mongols, Napoleon, and Hitler.  And yes, we have also had to survive the excesses and weaknesses of Comrades Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev.  And most of all, Russia must recover from the damage done by that liberal twit Gorbachev—the man who let the USSR break apart—and his helper, that drunken buffoon Yeltsin.   

When Russia recovers to its former glory—my personal goal is the full recovery of the Russian borders of 1914—it will because we are strong in our proud conservatism, not weak in our wilting liberalism.  

Oh, and one last point: If the governing authority of the future is not based on religion and tradition, the result will be vastly worse.   That is, if the Western powers can’t set up a guiding conservatism based on shared history and familiar hierarchy, the new order will be much worse.  If revered conservatism fails, it won’t be succeeded by freedom, it will be succeeded by the iron rule of capitalists and technologists.

What do I mean by this?   We might consider the stark words of Google’s Eric Schmidt when he said, “If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.”   Now that’s a quote to warm the heart of Comrade Stalin.   

I find myself in agreement with my new friend Edward Snowden, who declared recently, in a broadcast from Moscow, that new technology offered power to central authority that tyrants of the past could never have imagined: 

“George Orwell warned us of the danger…The types of collection in the book [Orwell’s novel, 1984], microphones and video cameras, TVs that watch us, are nothing compared to what we have available today…Think about what this means for the privacy of the average person.  A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They’ll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves an unrecorded, unanalyzed thought. And that’s a problem because privacy matters; privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.” 

Yes, Snowden has a point.  Compared to the total surveillance you Americans are going through, good old Russian-style authoritarianism looks pretty sweet.  Yes, of course, Russia will spy on its domestic enemies.  But we have no need to spy on everyone in Russia, because we know that the vast majority of Russians support their government.  

We govern by received tradition, including our faith.  By contrast, you govern by technological tyranny—plus the radical non-faith of your elites.   That’s the big difference between the USA and Russia, and it’s a big difference indeed.

Big Government