Rubio Lies About Ted Cruz Because He Can’t Compete Otherwise

Image via Conservative Review

This article originally appeared at Conservative Review.

by Jen Kuznicki

Are we so used to the world’s march to the left that we can no longer understand our individual rights and the reasons and arguments that led to America?

According to the New York Times, Marco Rubio seems to have a problem with your individual rights. That must be why he’s spending time and money trying to portray Ted Cruz as Chuck Schumer’s best buddy.

Rubio is still claiming that the USA Freedom Act, which Cruz and Lee championed, resulted in an inability for national security experts to track terrorism, going so far as to say that if there were a terrorist attack on Thanksgiving, it would be in part due to Cruz’s support for that bill. Oh how things would be different if a Democrat made that charge. Republicans would be out in force denouncing them for “hoping for a terrorist attack.”

But with Rubio, the now-darling of the GOP establishment, Republicans are laughing off the danger of having the government gather your bulk data without a warrant.

It really is no surprise though, because these are people who have already committed themselves to big government.

For Americans who see that the government is becoming more and more omnipresent and political parties are becoming more and more unified in lurching left, this is a serious issue.

The government seizing anything from a law-abiding private citizen should be an inducement to draw your sword politically. This issue is not about location services on a smartphone, or whether the “government is spying on you,” as discussed recently on the Rush Limbaugh Show.

The real issue is, or rather was, bulk collection by the government in a world that is solidly marching toward war and totalitarianism—the danger that the information the government collects could be used to target you because of your political beliefs.

Some have claimed that the government cannot retrieve the metadata from the San Bernadino killers because part of the Patriot Act has expired. This is false. The metadata continues to be collected and stored with phone companies. The difference now after the USA Freedom Act is the government cannot collect it and cannot access it without a warrant.

These misperceptions bolster Rubio’s false attacks on Ted Cruz. But it is not difficult to see that if “the value of metadata was to be able to put together the chain of events after an event had happened,” as Rush mentioned on his show, that by all measures putting that data in the wrong hands is the biggest fear. Doing so could allow the government to piece together a case against an innocent person who stood at odds with the government’s agenda.

In the case of totalitarian regimes, loads of laws are put in place, not to catch someone in the act, but to catch them and then act on their previous violations.

Cruz effectively pushed back against Rubio on this issue, yesterday in Greenville, South Carolina, suggesting in part that Rubio’s position on the big government data grab is much like President Obama’s reaction to terrorism: an effort go after law-abiding gun owners.

It’s also the same ideology that gets a poor wheelchair-bound elderly grandmother strip searched in our airports.

Is it a conservative position to say that civil liberties are up to the Left to fight for and enforce? That is, if Rubio claims that going after someone without a warrant is acceptable then no American is safe from a government that has that much power. Taking Rubio at his word, are there any civil liberties he’d embrace?

The overarching difference between the arguments given by Ted Cruz and those given by Rubio is that one is looking out for the citizenry and the other is empowering government to rule over the citizenry.

To empower government under the banner of conservatism is nothing but a clear Leftist triumph. Make no mistake, that is what Rubio is doingIn his mind, it is the duty of every “compassionate conservative,” “reform conservative,” or whatever the next new qualifier is, to distort the messaging and meaning of the principles Ronald Reagan so boldly embraced.

Rubio’s “ideological silliness” is being laid bare. If he trusts the government under an Obama or a Hillary to grab his information and sit on it, that’s his prerogative. But if America is ever to be free again, government’s power should be shrunk—a platform it is clear Rubio is so far not willing to embrace.

As Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

– See more at:

Loretta Lynch, Islamic Terrorism and Defining What Is ‘Not American’

Image via AP

This article originally appeared at CNS News


The left used an asinine argument after the Planned Parenthood shooting, which could be summed up as simply as this: “Your words caused that guy to shoot people.”

Now we read that the Attorney General of the United States Loretta Lynch (AG) is using the same guiding principle to prosecute people for their speech if it results in violence.

But the Charlie Hebdo massacre proves that speech directed at Mohammed resulted in violence. So, is the AG saying that those cartoonists should have been prosecuted posthumously?

The Attorney General of the United States is clearly violating the constitution, but what will be done about it?

At a tenth anniversary dinner for “Muslim Advocates” Lynch said, “When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

What is violent talk? Is it threatening violence, or simply saying something that might offend?

In a world where pointing out that Bruce Jenner is still a man with a Y-chromosome and male genitalia, or climate change is a natural occurrence, or that “All Lives Matter,” is offensive speech, will it then be said that stating that ISIS is short for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, that the Islamic State is killing people in our own nation, that they are beheading and crucifying Christians and children, that they are murdering fellow Muslims, and that they have even burned a man alive for all to see the depths to which they will go, is prosecutable?

Apparently, the AG is promising Muslim advocates that she will prosecute free speech. But while she is defining what is, and what is not “American,” she raises the fear level among Americans who know that political correctness is endangering our nation.

It’s foolish to suggest that after 9/11, jihadists just up and left the nation.  They’re still here, and what was once a heavy suspicion that they are biding their time and recruiting more to attack our nation has turned into a terrorist attack in San Bernadino. Yet we still have to be careful about what we say about the religious who are murdering people.  What do we get from the administration? It’s not their fault. Something about the Crusades? Who holds the real blame here? It’s not Islamic.

Lynch said, “The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. My message to not just the Muslim community but to the entire American community is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.”

If speech escalates to murder by another, shouldn’t it be a priority that the murderer be prosecuted for violating the law? Isn’t that a “rule of law” kind of theory? It seems that, according to the AG, saying negative things about Islamists is like yelling fire in a theater or threatening to overthrow the government. There is no mention by the AG that people who simply speak negatively about Islamic terrorists would be part of her prosecutorial discretion, and that is indeed a worry when we are possibly facing war in our own communities.

BLM Screams Intolerance, But Tolerance Isn’t What They Are Looking For

Image via AP

This article originally appeared at CNS News.


A short while ago, Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors began a protest on the campus of Dartmouth that turned into an attempt to shutdown of the college’s library.

According to Breitbart, “The Dartmouth Reviewreported that last Thursday, some 150 ‘black-clad’ Black Lives Matter protesters pushed and shoved students and hurled racial epithets (i.e., ‘F*** you, you filthy white f***s!’ ‘F*** you and your comfort!’ ‘F*** you, you racist s***!’) in the college’s library.”  One school newspaper mentioned “shoving,” which is assault.  But after that report was picked up by the mainstream press, the college claimed there was no shoving.

With the new promise made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding “rhetoric accompanied with acts of violence,” shouldn’t these protesters be investigated and possibly prosecuted?

According to Dartmouth, the protesters’ actions were in response to a vandalized art display:

“In response to the vandalization of a Black Lives Matter art installation in Collis Center, Dartmouth students organized a large, peaceful meeting on the night of November 12 in support of the national Black Lives Matter movement.”

Peaceful? Screaming obscenity-laced racial epithets in the faces of studiers in a library is peaceful?  Since when?

And without knowledge of who might have vandalized some art, how is it remotely okay for these protesters to target white people sitting peacefully in a library?

But the simplistic argument to explain away the vulgar protesters’ actions goes something like this: The protesters did what they did because someone else did something that the protesters deemed racist.  Therefore, whoever caused the BLM reaction is at fault.

Great logic, no? It’s like taking a shin-kick from a snotty spoiled five-year-old kid, and upon reporting the incident to the child’s mother, the mother responds, “What did you do to make him kick you?”

Just as children need to be taught responsibility for their actions, so too do the BLM protesters need to be taught to take responsibility for theirs. Dartmouth Review reported that the violence at the library was recorded on social media by students following the incident.

In explaining away the possibility that there was physical contact, the NAACP leader at the college said, “These allegations of physical assault are lies to make white students look like the victims and students of color to look like the perpetrators,” Abera said. “The protest was meant to shut down the library. Whatever discomfort that many white students felt in that library is a fraction of the discomfort that many Natives, blacks, Latina and LGBTQ people feel frequently.”

So, once again, you’re a lying racist if you claim you were assaulted, and if you felt threatened, it’s about time you have been forced to empathize.

But a close reading of the Civil Rights Act might show that the protesters, by singling out the white people in the library and disrupting their right to peaceful study, are in violation of the rights they claim to be fighting for.

Ironic, isn’t it – that Dartmouth’s library doesn’t necessarily fall under the parameters of the Civil Rights Act, because it’s a private institution?

We can remind people over and over again that if this was a protest by White Lives Matter (a play on the BLM movement), you’d better believe that every single protester would be under federal scrutiny at the least and prosecution at the most.  But it will take a change of heart and lessons on tolerance for the people of the BLM movement to stop their racial injustice.

Unfortunately, tolerance isn’t what they are looking for.

Will Hillary Stop at Nothing to Change America?

Image via AP

This article first appeared at Conservative Review


n a lengthy, racially-biased screed at New Republic, Michael Eric Dyson tries to convince black voters that Hillary Clinton will be a better president for black Americans than President Obama has been.

Dyson revisits some of the things President Obama has said, and some things he has not done that were expected of him from the black community; items that make Dyson and other racialists wonder if Obama believes “Black Lives Matter.”

The author then disclosed that he had an interview with Hillary in which he asked her about the Black Lives Movement (BLM) movement, and she said, “You know, I believe that what these young men and women are doing is so critically important. But what we have to be honest about is that, in too many places, not just on the streets but in all kinds of institutions and communities, this message pierces either the indifference, the insensitivity, or, indeed, the hostility and racism.”

To this day, Hillary is working on her plan to enforce the ideology she adopted many years ago. In a world of fluctuation, she has remained constant.

Apparently, Clinton is referring to the hostility and racism of white people who are being pushed to confront their privilege.  Regardless of the quick mental association you are experiencing about her whiteness and her privilege, Dyson is folding her into the syndicate. Hers might be the only White Life that Matters.

Dyson goes on to write that a BLM founder from Worchester, Massachusetts complained to Mrs. Clinton that “until someone takes that message and speaks that truth to white people in this country so that we can actually take on anti-blackness as a founding problem in this country, I don’t believe that there is going to be a solution.”  He then asked a question, “What in your heart has changed that’s going to change the direction of this country?”

Hillary said, “I don’t believe you just change hearts,” she said. “I believe you change laws. You change allocation of resources. You change the way systems operate.”

Hillary doesn’t believe persuasion is key; she believes force is.

Hillary’s entire adult life has been spent pursuing the presidency.  We know this because of her letters to Saul Alinsky and her college thesis about Alinsky.  She really believed and loved the author of Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals, but she said time and again that Alinsky’s passion for protest, disruption, and civil disobedience was not going to make the changes happen in society, that the way to change America is by becoming part of the system, and taking it over.

To this day, Hillary is working on her plan to enforce the ideology she adopted many years ago.  In a world of fluctuation, she has remained constant.  Her views—not only that whites are racists, but that Jewish people are “oppressors,” the Second Amendment is the cause of terrorism, women’s rights are superior to others’, and religion must be crushed—are the same she held in college 50 years ago.

As noted in the Washington Free Beacon, Hillary’s college thesis included her criticism of the Alinsky’s tactics, which are being used to this day: “Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.

Fifty years later, she’s closer than she’s ever been to realizing her goal of using government force to achieve the injustice of imposing social justice.

The nation experienced quite a disruption when President Obama came into office, and it is foolhardy to believe that his last year won’t be filled with as much as he can get away with.  But it is Mrs. Clinton whose ideology was formed before Obama was born, and she has no other aspirations but the presidency, which makes her the most dangerous person who could ever be elected President of the United States.


Rubio is Weak on the Constitution

Image via AP

This article first appeared at Conservative Review

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Senator Marco Rubio is backing an extension of the provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire this week, while labeling his fellow Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul weak on national security.

Either Senator Rubio is unserious about the Constitution, or he is horribly misinformed.

In reaction to the ISIS slaughter in Paris, Senator Marco Rubio’s policy on foreign threats to the United States includes backing a push to end the National Security Agency reforms that were put in place upon passage of the USA Freedom Act. The first-term Senator is claiming that the USA Freedom Act reforms would leave our intelligence agencies “fewer tools to defend the American people.”

Scoffing at the idea that the federal government is spying on Americans, Rubio recently said, “There are members of the Republican Party, that includes Senator Cruz and Senator Paul, who have argued that somehow the government is out there spying on everybody, so we need to gut these programs. That isn’t true.”

What “isn’t true” is that the USA Freedom Act “gutted” the Patriot Act.  It did not. It effectively reversed the FISA court’s overbroad interpretation of the Patriot Act.

Either Senator Rubio is unserious about the Constitution, or he is horribly misinformed.

Rubio hasn’t mentioned one of the sponsors of the USA Freedom Act, Senator Mike Lee, who has been front and center on this issue and dedicated a chapter of his book, Our Lost Constitution, to the “Forgotten Fourth Amendment,” explaining its historical foundation and why it is so important to end bulk collection of Americans’ data.

In Chapter Five, Lee points to a Senate hearing in which the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, was asked, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”  At the time, Clapper said that the NSA did not, at least not wittingly.  But three months later, he admitted that his testimony was “clearly erroneous.”  Marco Rubio was at that hearing, and the findings about bulk data collection hit the news cycle in a big way; so, has he forgotten?

If the government can justify gathering information on you because of someone else’s transgressions, there is no security for any of us.

The main issues are once again being downplayed by candidate Rubio so that he may claim that anyone who voted in favor of applying the Fourth Amendment is conspiratorial and is letting the terrorists win.

But Lee makes the issue very easy to comprehend.  Going back to the fight between King George III and John Wilkes, Lee explains the battle for protection against general warrants and how it pertains to the technological world of today: “Warrants must describe ‘the place to be searched.’ They must name the ‘person or things to be seized.’ There must be ‘probable cause’ to support those warrants.”  Why? Well, perhaps Marco Rubio doesn’t get it, but millions of Americans can see how an oppressive government might use its power against law-abiding citizens by simply compiling their data.

I wonder if Marco Rubio believes that national security means everyone should be under surveillance? I wonder if he believes the Fourth Amendment is outdated?  If the government can justify gathering information on you because of someone else’s transgressions, there is no security for any of us.  When everyone in the nation is not secure in their own person, papers or effects, which now includes your digital information, the whereabouts of your phone, and the even photos of your license plates at various locations, the Fourth Amendment is certainly forgotten, as Lee makes clear.

The FISA court dramatically expanded a provision of the Patriot Act under President Obama, giving him authorization to search Americans’ communications, a provision that was banned during the presidency of G.W. Bush.  This reversal happened in 2011, and one should note the fact that the FISA court answers to no one but the administration.  Are we to believe Marco Rubio doesn’t know anything about the FISA court?  Are we looking at a candidate that eschews the United States Constitution and forgets the hearings he attends?  Rubio praised Lee’s book when it came out, but perhaps he didn’t read it.

Rubio should at least know what the USA Freedom Act does, and that it does not “gut” the Patriot Act, but puts in place protections for the American people who are right now being treated as suspects in a War on Terror made more heinous by the policies of this president.   In “McConnell the Anti-Patriot,” I wrote: “The USA Freedom Act stops the government from collecting data, shortens the amount of time that it can be stored by companies and therefore limits search time, and yet keeps in place the tools needed to search within the required warrant.”  It stands in defense of the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which promises that your personal effects cannot be taken without a warrant.  Rubio’s push to delay those reforms amounts to an acceptance of a would-be police state in the one nation that came about because we demanded freedom.

Americans are losing their freedoms every day this president remains in office.  But Marco Rubio’s attack—that Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, by voting to defend the Constitution, are somehow weak on national security—is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and shows utter disregard for the nation’s values, our Constitution, and our individual liberty.

In short, Rubio is arguing for more government control over you; Cruz, Paul, and Lee, less.

– See more at:

Pro-Aborts Deflect Their Own Unethical and Immoral Behavior

Image via AP

This article originally appeared at CNS News.


A lot has been said on the radio and television about how the right-to-life movement has caused Robert Dear to shoot up a Planned Parenthood in Colorado.

Upon capture, Dear said, “no more baby parts,” in reference, allegedly, to Planned Parenthood videos that showed the company’s directors haggling over prices of aborted child parts.  Because of those four words, Planned Parenthood and the pro-abort crowd blame pro-lifers for apparently making a big deal about the unethical practice of selling baby parts leading to ways in which Planned Parenthood could make money using different approaches during abortions, and, we must not forget, the possible coercion of women to abort at a certain stage of pregnancy.

Yet former neighbors of the shooter seemed to have a different recollectionof Dear: “If you talked to him, nothing with him was very cognitive — topics all over [the] place.”

But the media seem to have their own explanation for his motive and his mental state, jumping to conclusions based on the fact that he was at the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs.  To them it just meant that the angry rhetoric coming from pro-lifers made him shoot an unarmed Iraqi WarVeteran in the parking lot, follow the injured man as he crawled to the Planned Parenthood entrance for help or to warn others about a live shooter, and then finally kill him before shooting the front glass out of the Planned Parenthood Clinic.

Dear went on to kill two more people, one a police officer who was also a pro-life pastor, and a young mother who was escorting a friend at the clinic. Then he made it out of Planned Parenthood alive.  But let’s stay on point. Making it out alive didn’t work out for 327,653 unborn in 2014.

The mindless and heartless have been arguing for days that Dear is a pro-lifer who wanted to kill people.  Doesn’t that make him a pro-deather?  The narrative that Dear started shooting up a Planned Parenthood because of how others react to what that company is doing is about as loony as Dear’s neighbors reportedly say he is.

Dear’s action was surely not pro-life, since he killed innocent people, one of which was pro-life, another served our country, and yet another who was a wife and mother.

This little media blitz by the pro-aborts won’t change the images in the minds of the people who respect all life and who are part of an ever-growing pro-life movement thanks in part to the taped interviews from The Center for Medical Progress.

Planned Parenthood told us that taking a child’s life is a right the mother has; they have said that they aren’t using taxpayer money for abortions; and they have used rhetoric that suggests that pro-lifers just want pro-aborts dead.  Yet, they were secretly taped casting lots for the arms, legs, brains, bodies and other organs of little tiny babies yearning to live free.

If you have respect for human life you will protect the innocent unborn as well as the innocent that have been lucky enough to have been born.  The abortion industry’s efforts to claim that scrutiny of their barbaric acts has resulted in the shooting of three Americans is simply to deflect from the deaths and mutilation of millions of pre-born.

Guns Are Flying Off the Shelves

Image via AP

This article originally appeared at CNS News.


According to the FBI, last week’s Black Friday sales smashed all one-day records for background checks. According to the Left, something has to be done about it.

Not only did Black Friday this year smash records, but background checks from gun sales from May, June, July, August, September, and October were all record-breaking as well.

The people of America know several key points about today’s United States of America: (1) Violence is escalating with the Black Lives Matter movement; (2) rhetoric from the nation’s president consistently calls for more and more gun control; (3) gun-free zones and soft targets are hit because people are not allowed to be armed within them; and (4) Jihadists live among us.

If all that doesn’t prompt you to find a way to protect your life and the lives of your family members, then you aren’t paying attention.

Having the right to bear arms is a birthright for peaceful American citizens, and the Framers understood that that right was to defend your life against an oppressive government. There would never be a question that people should have guns to defend themselves and their property.

Here are some quotes from the founding era that give perspective as to why they can never, ever take our guns:

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”

– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

– Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”

– Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

The reason the Second Amendment will remain enforced in this nation is because of its original intent. A government where the people are not allowed to defend themselves is a police-state, where only the government has the guns. Not in America. No. Not ever!

A Treasury of Quotes About Our 2nd Amendment

by task on January 3, 2013 ·

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
–John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-178

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
–Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

“The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
– Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
– Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
– Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
– Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
– James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

“The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
– Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ”
–Samuel Adams

Is Jeb Losing the Primary to Win the General?

image via AP – Rainier Ehrhardt 

Read my commentary at Conservative Review

Is Jeb Losing the Primary to Win the General?

By: Jen Kuznicki | November 25th, 2015

It was a puzzling statement for sure when Jeb Bush said early on in his run for president that Republicans need to stop trying to win the argument, and that he would rather lose the primary in order to win the general.

Many, including me, asked just how it is possible to lose the primary but go on to win in the general, a race determined by who wins the Republican primary.

But now that Jeb has thoroughly botched the debates, and fallen far short of getting enough momentum before Iowa to be considered in contention for winning the primary, shouldn’t we ask whether he is simply following through with his stated goal?

In an article at The Hill, a seemingly unimportant endorsement for president came from Michigan first-term Republican Congressman Mike Bishop.  With Bush being out of the general news cycle, and establishment operatives publicly claiming they are actively engaging in demolishing Donald Trump’s run, perhaps a silent campaign to try to throw a wrench in the works is being fought on behalf of Jeb, while he sits in wait to secure the nomination at the convention.

It seems as though most establishment loyalists have soured on Jeb Bush, and have jumped onto the cause of first-term Senator Marco Rubio.  As of this writing, Rubio has secured nine congressional endorsements, while Jeb Bush has a total of 29 congressional endorsements, Bishop being the latest.

For many years, the endorsement of a Republican from Congress gave the candidate meaningful gravitas, but this year is by all measures very different.

But the difference is not necessarily recognized by the, as Sarah Palin would call it, “good ol’ boys club.”

As the polling continues to favor Donald Trump, and certain factors have increased or decreased other candidates’ numbers, it has become routine to accept that Jeb Bush is out of the running.  But I would caution every liberty-loving American watching this process that this is not necessarily the case.

As the days pass, I don’t think it will be surprising to see more and more congressional representatives back Bush.  As the primaries draw near, it is conceivable that Bush will use his large amounts of money to make his case for the loyal GOP voters who populate the Republican Parties in the states. Primaries have notoriously low turnout, so those who are involved in the party system and loyally take orders from the establishment are Bush’s base.

These folks detest chaos, detest conservatives, and though their own rules bar them from backing a candidate in the primary, in the end, the practice will be widespread as usual, so you can be sure that the familiar name of Bush will draw most, and through that cronyism, have a formidable ground force.

Perhaps some would say that there is no catching Trump, but again I would caution that Trump’s voters are not necessarily Republicans, or at least connected in meaningful ways with the Republican Parties in the states.  Many are disaffected Democrats, completely bewildered tea partiers out to destroy the current state of the GOP, and others just seem to want to vote for a guy who they see not as politician but a very successful household name.  But Trump will have to convince these folks to go out in the spring, pick up a Republican ballot, and vote for him, and it seems to me, without an effective primary ground game populated by people who know how the GOP operates, Trump might find that his big numbers now might not be reflected at primary time.

At this time, Republican machines in each state are gearing up once again to promote a moderate squish.  Kasich, the epitome of a moderate squish, is the governor of the state where the convention is held.  The latest Trump showing in Ohio is probably consuming Kasich’s every thought.  He obviously will stop at nothing to impede an outsider candidate, and I would caution not to underestimate the influence of the governor, the Ohio machine which includes an ousted Speaker of the House, nor the “brothers in arms” of big government.

One of those brothers is Karl Rove.  His famous meltdown in 2012 over the results in Ohio has every beltway cog convinced that a Republican cannot win the nomination without that state.  Rove has been said to personally dislike Jeb, but when push comes to shove, Rove will always be there to perpetuate the cronyism, amnesty, and debt of the previous Bush administration.

Jeb went down in flames after the last debate.   His burn rate was astronomical, prompting him to cut back on staff.  His strange comments about killing baby Hitler, his inability to make a statement with fluidity, and his silly “fix it” campaign dropped his numbers.  He was ridiculed by those you would think would stand by him, but the fact that he is still out there, asking for and receiving endorsements from congressmen, and staying quite under the radar, make me wonder if his strange strategy is still underway.

On the other hand, if Jeb’s “losing the primary to win the general” just means that he would be mollified if another moderate squish with the same intentions on immigration won the nomination, we should all keep a close eye on Rubio, who simply parrots Bush’s stances on immigration in a different package.

Jen Kuznicki is a contributor to Conservative Review, blue collar, wife, mom, political writer, humorist, conservative activist, a seamstress by trade, and compelled to write. Follow her on Twitter @JenKuznicki.  

– See more at:


Veterans Keep America’s Hope Alive

From the beginning of this nation the men and women who answered the call for freedom wove the steel structure of the beautiful and humbling promise of America.  They did not push away the feelings of responsibility that gnawed at their conscience, they did not put off the urgency of action, and it is only because of their courage and righteousness, that America continues.


We are once again at a defining time when our nation is tested by enemies within and without who would gladly see a weak and indecisive America pulling away from its clear and decisive past; a stagnant and strait-jacketed nation instead of a proud and prosperous one; a godless and self-immolating nation instead of the one nation, under God and indivisible, that our short history has proven is our natural position.


There is no better time than today to recall the trials and tests our nation has overcome, so that the promise of America can live on.  We should think of the courage, the heart and soul of these men and women who did more for this nation than any mere politician or celebrity.  Yet so many are bewildered, forgotten, and treated poorly by a government with screwed-up priorities and a too-spoiled citizenry that knows nothing of the hell that was paid for their safety.


Today and everyday, Americans should remember that they are Americans, first and foremost, and that it means something.  We are the only nation in the history of the world that was founded on the belief that man’s freedom is a right given by God Almighty.  We are the only nation in world history that turned history upside down by acknowledging the laws of nature and of nature’s God are the basis of our governance and that a righteous citizenry can and would govern themselves.  In the history of the world, philosopher kings decided everything for “the masses” and “the masses” were dullards incapable of self-governance.  Monarchies arose and named their favorable classes, and the rest, the peasants were left with no choices in their lives, and no way to get out of poverty.


This nation threw off all of it.  This nation, through precarious strategy, horrible battles, but with the banner of righteousness, said, “No dammit!  We will be free!”


And we owe that to our veterans over hundreds of years.  We who have not served owe immeasurable gratitude to them and their steel spines and their golden hearts.  And we also owe it to them to be resolute in the years to come to make sure their efforts will not be wasted.


Happy Veterans Day to the veterans of all of the United States Military.  America thanks you from the bottom of our heart.

This article first appeared at CNS News