I’ve been a loyal Dittohead since 1990 when I joined the military. I’ve been a member of Rush 24/7 from the beginning. I stuck by Rush through thick & thin, even as his voice modulation suffered as a result of his deafness. He has only two tones now, his strained booming bass and his screeching squeak when he tries to emphasize a point (and no, I’m not referring to his New Castrati impersonation). The screeching squeak is becoming more common, but I can tolerate it if he keeps the content of the show up to EIB standards.
Lately, Rush seems to be phoning it in, by riffing on whatever Drudge headline is currently hot, and recycling the old Limbaugh standard responses to leftist news. But I can grit my teeth and tolerate this, if he sticks to conservative principles.
Until this past June, I was always certain that Rush followed his convictions & principles wherever they led, and that he wasn’t the type of host who would abandon his principles to chase ratings. I can no longer believe that, because the evidence is overwhelming that Rush has tossed the conservative principles in which he once believed.
I’m fed up with Rush constantly pimping Donald Trump, the progressive huckster masquerading as a conservative. Rush is obviously chasing ratings, since The Donald draws eyes and ears no matter where he appears. Rush’s audience has been dropping and with it his advertising revenue, so I understand the temptation. It must be easy to fluff the numbers by appealing to the temporary mob of idiot Trumpkins who uncritically cheer everything Trump-related. It’s a lucrative proposition in the short run, as long as you ignore the risk of driving away loyal long-term listeners like me. Lord knows, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Ann Coulter have succumbed to the temptation. I had hoped that Rush was made of sterner stuff, and would find a way to appeal to modern conservatives in an era with declining AM radio listenership.
No more. My hopes have finally evaporated and I’ve had enough. Rush has driven me away, and I’m not coming back after the Trump bubble finally pops and the idiot Trumpkins wander off to chase the next shiny object. No “return to conservatism” that Rush mounts will ever be convincing. He sold out, so let him enjoy retirement with his last thirty pieces of Trumpkin silver.
Cancel my Rush 24/7 membership and my subscription to The Limbaugh Letter.
October 29, 2015
I’m not happy to have to do it, but it’s inescapable.
Thankfully, Dana Loesch is just as good as Rush ever was, and her talent is on the upswing.
After the new Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced out last week over his $1000 donation in 2008 to a group protecting marriage agains erosion by same sex “marriage,” users of the Mozilla’s web browser Firefox reacted in outrage by removing it from their computers and web-enabled devices. The firestorm of anger at Mozilla that kicked off late last week kept burning through the weekend, according to the organization’s own stats. Here are the feedback trends for the last 90 days, with “sad” comments in red and “happy” comments in green:
Here’s a closer look at the last seven days:
If this user revolt maintains momentum through this week, Mozilla may face a serious drop in its share of the very competitive web browser and e-mail market. I truly hope the backlash against Soviet-like mob action continues long enough to permanently cripple Mozilla. Corporate boards need to learn that caving in to a virtual lynch mob carries too high a price to bear.
So far, Mozilla’s strategy seems to be to hunker down and hope the firestorm fizzles. Don’t let it happen. Uninstall Mozilla products and let them know why.
You’ll need to read the whole book to properly understand the problems America faces, but here’s the situation in a nutshell. We live in a post-constitutional republic with a federal government that no longer obeys — but sometimes pays lip service to — the US Constitution. Merely electing new politicians to replace the old ones isn’t enough to fix the problem anymore. The system as it stands is rigged against your individual liberty, and unless we fix the system, we’re doomed to live under soft tyranny (defined four years ago here).
Constitutional scholar, lawyer, and radio host Mark Levin urges Americans to use the last resort provided in the Constitution to save the country from tyranny:
Levin aims to change the rules of the game… or, more properly, reset them, to restore the brilliant system put in place by America’s Founders. With the situation explained and his goals set forth in a few introductory pages, he executes the rest of his book with the planning and precision of a SEAL team taking an objective. Each of his proposed “Liberty Amendments” is laid out in a brief chapter that explains its importance, sources it to the writings of the Founding Fathers, and anticipates the more reasonable objections that would likely be raised. Little time is wasted on the unreasonable objections, for Levin does not intend to address an audience of the stupid, greedy, or hysterical. He also knows his statist adversaries are not interested in rationally discussing the death of the Leviathan they nourished for generations.
“What’s he proposing?”
Levin proposes that we use the second of two methods for enacting amendments to the US Constitution, and he offers 11 amendments that would fix the rigged system we’re currently stuck with. If you want to read them by themselves without any background, click here to jump to the end of this post.
For a much more detailed look at why this convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the constitution makes excellent sense, go read the first chapter of The Liberty Amendments, which Levin released for free at the beginning of the month. It’s brief, and everything’s footnoted and explained in detail, including references to historical debates between the Founders. The quotes reveal how and why they drafted Article V of the Constitution, which sets forth the amendment processes.
Here’s the whole carefully-worded text of Article V (emphasis mine):
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall calla convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
What we’re talking about here is not a constitutional convention, because there’s no such process set forth in the US Constitution. A constitutional convention is what a people do when they draft a new constitution from scratch. What Levin urges is something different. Look at that red highlighted text again. This would be a a convention for proposing amendments to the constitution, not a convention for tossing the whole thing out and starting over. Let us not hear any wild-eyed warnings against a “Con-Con,” then.
This is simply the second of two constitutional methods for proposing amendments, where the federal government does nothing but clerical work — verifying that 2/3 of the legislatures of the 50 States have called for a convention, and choosing between two ratification methods. True, we’ve never used this method before, but so what? Until now, we’ve enacted 27 amendments, all using the first method where they’re proposed by the US Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Now Congress has completely lost its moorings and no longer responds to our concerns, and it will never propose amendments to limit itself, the President, the federal courts, or the federal bureaucracy. So be it. The Founders wisely left us another constitutional remedy for this problem, one that allows us to rein in our government without violence. That’s all this is.
“But what if the federal government objects?”
Look at the green highlighted text. If the legislatures of 34 out of 50 States apply to the US Congress to call a convention, Congress must do so. There’s no discretion or wiggle room because the operative word is “shall.” It does not say that Congress “may” call a convention … or “should” or “can” or “might if it feels kinda generous.” There’s only a very limited and insignificant role for Congress in this situation — counting to 34, then picking one of two previously-established ratification methods. They can’t monkey around with the content of the amendments, nor can they stop them.
Also notice that neither the President, the Supreme Court, the federal bureaucracy, the lower federal courts, the 50 governors, nor the State courts have any role here. They’re all just spectators. This process barely involves the US Congress, and the legislatures of the 50 States truly run this show. Once 34 States call for a convention to propose amendments, Congress must call a convention, and all 50 States get to send delegates … even the States that didn’t want the convention to begin with.
“What’s to stop a runaway convention?”
If you’re worried about a runaway convention, where the delegates come up with a dozen good amendments and 800 wacky ones, there’s a safeguard. Reread the yellow highlighted text. The proposed amendments must be submitted to the 50 State legislatures or to 50 State conventions (whichever method Congress picks), and not a single amendment gets enacted unless 3/4 of the States ratify it. This is an inherently federalist process. Even if only 34 States call for a convention, they’ll have to get 38 States to ratify an amendment before it’s enacted. That’s a high bar to clear, so it severely limits the odds of wacky or unpopular proposals becoming law.
If you’re still worried that 310 million Americans are prone to enact a bunch of insane amendments to the US Constitution, I don’t know what to tell you. Why haven’t they already done so? Why haven’t they already tossed the Constitution formally, if that’s what they truly want? You’re either out of touch with reality (because you’re mistaken about your countrymen) or you’ve got no hope to begin with (because you can’t stop 310 million people from tossing the Constitution tomorrow at 6:00 if they want to).
Recent experience suggests that the activists on both sides are the one who will get involved, and the lazy majority will eat their Cheetos and watch reality TV. And here’s where things get promising.
“C’mon. How can this possibly work?”
While utopian statists have a death grip on the federal government, we constitutional conservatives and libertarians outnumber them at the grassroots level. Our ranks crush theirs. This process stacks the deck in our favor because it completely bypasses the masterminds in Washington, DC. Without that giant bludgeon, the statists have nothing. You and I have a snowball’s chance in Hell of meeting — much less persuading during an in-depth conversation — our US Representative or either of our US Senators. But our State Representative and our State Senator? That’s an entirely different ball game. It’s relatively easy to get their attention. None of them lives far from you. Odds are that none of them is very rich or very powerful. Neither does any of them have a bloated staff of underlings dedicated to protecting them from your influence. Very few people go to them for anything these days, largely because all the action’s in Washington where the federal Leviathan has sucked up all the money and power and oxygen.
You have proportionately huge influence over your state legislators. Use it.
“OK, but what do I do?”
Call your State Representative’s office and ask for a meeting. Call your State Senator and tell them you want to have a chat face to face. See what happens. A significant chunk of State legislators already want to see more authority returned to the States where it belongs, and that makes them your allies. Call yours and set up a meeting with each.
If they won’t see you, find five people who share your goals and call back again. They’ll schedule the meeting.
If saving the Republic and your individual liberties is worth $31.62 to you, grab two copies of The Liberty Amendments and write your name, e-mail, phone number, and brainshavings.com/liberty on the inside cover of each book. Give one to your State Rep and the other to your State Senator, and tell them you’d like them to read it. Tell them you’ll be in touch in a month to discuss how to get the ball rolling.
When you have your second meeting, suggest that they co-sponsor a simple resolution that says something like …
Rescinding all previous such applications, the Legislature of the State of _______ hereby applies to the United States Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments to the United States Constitution.
That’s it. Get that started in your State House and in your State Senate, then get cosponsors. Get a majority in one body, then in the other. Once you get the same language passed though each body, you’re done.
One State down, 33 to go … and the other 33 aren’t your responsibility.
“So once the convention is called, what kinds of amendments would we need?”
Here are the eleven amendments Mark Levin came up with. I think they’d go a very long way toward fixing the rigged system we’re currently stuck with, and they would reverse this slide into tyranny.
Nine out of the eleven really warm my heart. I have a different amendment in mind that would balance the budget and limit spending and taxation, but I’m just one guy. I could easily live with Levin’s two spending and taxing amendments instead. Hell, who’s to say you haven’t got better ideas?
Just consider this: if you’re one of the first people to get this ball rolling in your State, who do you suppose might get a call from your State Rep or State Senator when it’s time for them to choose delegates for the convention? Imagine being involved in making history, and in a good way! So go buy two copies, read one, make your two phone calls, and go hand the books to your legislators.
We can save the Republic, but someone has to start the ball rolling. If not you … then who?
I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.
Homosexual attraction may or may not be genetic (and thus unavoidable). Actual homosexual conduct is avoidable. Its harmful public health consequences are well-documented. Open homosexual conduct’s corrosion of a society founded on the nuclear heterosexual family is also well-documented.
Further, government has a rational basis for encouraging childbirth, as maintaining the population of contributing members of society allows that society to continue (duh). Since it’s well-documented that children raised by married monogamous heterosexuals turn out better/healthier/more productive/more peaceable than children raised in other environments, government has a rational basis for encouraging monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and whateversexuals will put their naughty bits where they want to. Government can’t stamp that out, nor should it try (there are too many more important tasks for it to accomplish, tasks which it currently neglects). But at a minimum, government should refrain from subsidizing, celebrating, or normalizing such socially corrosive conduct.
If you choose to warp this argument into “teh creepy Jesus peoplez want to round up teh gayz!!!1!” … well, I can’t stop you. I can sure as hell ridicule your intellectual foolishness, though.
The American electorate appears determined to join the Free Shit Army™, while preening in the mirror over its collective refusal to recognize corrosive conduct for what it is. So be it. Spendthrifts will eventually run out of money, and libertines will eventually reap the whirlwind of chaos. We social conservatives will be here to rebuild once reality’s finished pimp-slapping some basic sense back into y’all.
I am going to take a while to ponder whether the principles of constitutional conservatism and limited government are still best advanced through the structure of the Republican Party.
Things are going to get much, much worse. We need to look at the big picture here. So pardon me as I duck into this cloud bank over here …
3:45 PM Update: The press and the educational establishment and Hollywood have transformed enough of the American people into progressive drones that they outnumber us. The progressive movement started a “Long March Through The Institutions” about a hundred years ago, and they crossed the finish line yesterday. At this moment, I think the republic is mortally wounded.
These fools we call countrymen will refuse to consider the consequences of utopian statism until they are forced to. That will only happen when this society implodes. Notice I said “when,” not “if.”
Hopefully Mark Levin can convince me otherwise tonight, because I doubt anyone else can.
7:00 PM Update: Hour 1 is done. Hour 2 should get into some real meat. Here’s the live stream.
Ever wondered why Congress doesn’t work? Think about this: when America was founded, the average Congressman represented 30,000 constituents. Today, it’s roughly 700,000. To make the U.S. House as responsive to all 300+ million of us as it used to be, it would need to grow from its current size of 425 Representatives.
Sparked by Michelle Malkin’s summary of a newly-released ebook for conservatives planning ahead for the inevitable GOP infighting during a potential Romney Administration, I came up with a variation on a familiar theme.
It neatly summarizes our predictions for how the Republican Establishment will justify its opposition to constitutional conservatives over the next several years, if we manage to put them back in power.
Now hear this. Now hear this. Set RINO Threat Level Blue. Check status of all conservative principles. That is all.
Leaving childhood behind and facing adulthood sucks, man.
It’s more fun to be childish, gutless, and foolish. I want to bleat empty slogans like “Hope and Change!” Personal responsibility, ordered liberty, limited government, and thinking past next Tuesday is for dorks. I think I’ll become a progressive. Now gimme your house, oppressor.
If this idea (see #HotAirDebate on Twitter) gets the OK from Romney, Gingrich, & Santorum, I’ll actually be eager to watch a GOP debate for once. Ed Morrissey from Hot Air would be an excellent moderator.
If crazy ol’ Ron Paul shows up too, it’ll be must-see TV.