Thoughts on Independence Day

Art credit: www.imanly.com

Here’s Bruce Thornton at FrontPage Magazine: 

Independence Day is a good time to revisit the foundations of our political order, especially given the long record of Barack Obama and the Democrats’ disregard for the Constitution. The members of the Continental Congress who met in Philadelphia in July 1776 sought their independence from England in order to recover their rights that had been violated by a tyrant, and to establish political freedom and autonomy so that those rights could be protected from further erosion. For a century now the Progressive ideology has insidiously undermined that legacy of autonomy in a slow-motion revolution that aims to “fundamentally transform America.”

. . . 

Needless to say, all these Progressive assaults on the spirit of the Declaration and the structure of the Constitution have accelerated and worsened under Obama, and once again recall the Declaration’s condemnation of George III for “taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our government,” and for declaring himself “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” In short, the Obama administration has created a regime undermining the foundational principles of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The founders had a word for such an assault on freedom––tyranny.

The rest of the article is here. 

Happy Independence Day!

America: Imagine the World Without Her

Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary, America: Imagine the World Without Her, opened this week. You can see the trailer at the official website here.   

Some patriots may want to watch the film over the Independence Day weekend. There are a few greater Cleveland venues showing the film. Check here for the theater nearest you (and be sure to call in advance to confirm the showtimes). Whether you plan to go or not, here is Andrew Klavan’s preview/review on PJ Media:

Dinesh D’Souza’s anti-Obama 2012 documentary 2016: Obama’s America was a surprise smash hit, earning 33 million dollars to make it one of the most successful American documentaries ever. The film put forward D’Souza’s thesis that Obama’s need to feel himself worthy of an absent radical father caused him to view America as a guilty colonialist power that had to be taken down a peg. It predicted that America’s enemies would grow stronger and its friends weaker as Obama progressed toward the end of his term. Much of what it predicted has come true.

You could tell D’Souza had hit a nerve when Obama toadies like Maureen Dowd went on the attack, accusing the Indian immigrant of racism! (What an original way for a leftist to counter an argument she doesn’t like. Funny no leftist has ever thought of it before.) But if we needed any further proof that D’Souza had in fact tapped into a rich mine of truth, it came when the federal government, now an oppressive arm of a corrupt Chicago-style Democrat machine, caught the author and filmmaker in a minor transgression of campaign finance laws and threatened to throw him in prison for over a decade. (This, after all, is the way this administration deals with inconvenient filmmakers, as we know. It’s quicker than the whole illegally-misuse-the-IRS-then-lose-the-evidence thing.)

D’Souza pled guilty; says he made a mistake; admits he’s not above the law. What he hasn’t done is fall silent in fear. Instead, he’s courageously produced a follow-up to the movie that got beneath this corrupt president’s thin skin and I’m delighted to report it’s a very good one.

America: Imagine The World Without Her begins by letting leftists tell why they hate this country, as they so obviously do. D’Souza doesn’t argue with them or try to make them look stupid. He lets them say exactly what they have to say: we stole the country from the Washington Redskins, we enslaved blacks, we murdered all those nice Vietnamese people, capitalism is greed, we suck.

D’Souza examines the way these arguments have become gospel to the left through the insidious work of “historian” Howard Zinn and the genuinely sinister activism of Saul Alinsky, spiritual mentor to both Obama and Hillary Clinton. And then D’Souza takes the left’s narrative apart by the simple technique of putting our “crimes” in the context of the rest of history and the actions of other countries throughout the world. Turns out — as rock star Bono says in the most moving scene in the picture — America is a terrific nation that has transformed the world for the good and continues to do so today.

Throughout the movie, D’Souza’s love for his adopted country comes shining through. His argument is poignant, powerful and convincing. Hey, you don’t even have to see it to know I’m right. You just have to read the nuanced, subtle, considered views of leftists who are already calling the film “nuts,” and a “total piece of junk,” and “the worst political documentary of all time.” Which is Leftese for “a good movie that tells the truth.”

It isn’t often I get to recommend a conservative work so wholeheartedly, but I’m just about positive you’ll like this, especially if you’re a patriot or simply an honest person ready to hear a different take than the one you’ve been getting at the movies for the last 50 years.

D’Souza’s a tough guy for not backing down, and a talented guy for delivering a strong sophomore effort. We need about 20 more like him.

Happy Independence Day! 

# # #

Cuyahoga County Council considers eight charter amendments

Cleveland.com reports

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Cuyahoga County's non-judicial elected offices, currently dominated by Democrats, would become nonpartisan, under a proposed charter amendment that county council will consider in the coming days.

Republican Councilman Jack Schron, who is running for county executive in the November election, has proposed removing party affiliation from elections for county executive, county prosecutor and county council. 

His proposal would set up a nonpartisan primary election. The top two vote-getters would move on to the general election.

Currently, eight of council's 11 members are Democrats, as is County Executive Ed FitzGerald and Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty.

To make the case for his proposal, Schron in an interview Tuesday pointed out that nearly all mayoral elections in the county are nonpartisan. He also cited registered voter statistics from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, which show about half of the county's 887,800 voters have not voted in a partisan primary.

Schron said this shows half of the county's voters are independents.  "There's a lot of folks out there who are talking about disenfranchised voters," Schron said. "There's not a bigger bloc of disenfranchised voters than the independents."

However, it's worth noting that actual voter activity in Cuyahoga County consistently heavily favors Democrats – for example, about 116,000 voters pulled Democratic ballots in last May's primary, compared to 48,300 Republican and 20,900 nonpartisan ballots, records show.  

Also, of Cuyahoga County's 57 mayors, 39 are registered Democrats, 14 are Republicans and four are independents. Finally, a Democratic presidential candidate has received at least 60 percent of the vote in all general elections since 1996 -- including a highpoint of about 69 percent for Barack Obama in 2012.

Pressed on whether his proposed amendment would benefit Republicans like himself who are seeking countywide office, Schron asked rhetorically: "Aren't we to the point where we want to elect a person rather than a party? Isn't that a good place to be?"

The amendment would not affect this November's election. While council has never formally considered the idea of making county elections nonpartisan, two members of a citizen-led charter review committee last year issued a minority report proposing such a move.

Council has scheduled a pair of committee hearings – one for Wednesday at 9 a.m. and another for Monday at 1:30 p.m. – to debate Schron's amendment and seven others.

In August, Council will hold final votes on which amendments to send to the November ballot. Each proposed amendment would need 'yes' votes from eight of council's 11 members -- three of whom are Republicans, eight of whom are Democrats -- in order to be presented to voters in the November election. Last year, voters overwhelmingly approved all four charter amendments that appeared on the ballot.

Here are the other amendments, a mix of old and new, council will consider:

1. Making it more difficult to fire the county sheriff

Under the proposal, removing the sheriff would require a nomination from the county executive and approval from eight council members. Once nominated, the sheriff would serve a four-year term, which would be staggered two years from the county executive.

Currently, the sheriff is subject to confirmation from council, but serves at the pleasure of the county executive. For instance, FitzGerald fired former Sheriff Bob Reid in January 2013 with little public explanation.

Council considered a similar amendment last year, but ultimately opted not to move it forward.

This proposal is sponsored by Republican Councilman Dave Greenspan.

2. Making the county inspector general's office a permanent part of the county charter

. . .

Like with the sheriff, removing the inspector general would require eight votes from county council. The position would serve a four-year term, staggered two years from the county executive. Council considered a similar proposal last year, and to the concern of good government advocates, opted not to move it forward.

Council would control the inspector general's annual budget, under the proposed amendment. Greenspan said he would prefer for the funding for the inspector general's office to be guaranteed in the charter, but he said he doesn't think his colleagues would support that.

3. Making the protection of the right to vote and promotion of ballot access a part of the county's charter

The so-called 'Voter Rights Amendment' was proposed in May by FitzGerald and co-sponsored by Democratic Councilwoman Sunny Simon.

The amendment authorizes the county to take action, including legal action, to protect and promote the right to vote among county residents.

FitzGerald proposed the amendment alongside legislation, which council approved along party lines, that defied a new law passed by Republicans prohibiting county governments from sending out unsolicited absentee ballot applications.

4. Requiring county executive candidates to live in the county for at least two years before being able to file for candidacy

Currently, a county executive candidate is simply required to be a resident of the county when filing to run. The proposed change would make the residency requirement for the county executive similar to the requirement applied to council members.

Under the proposed change, which council has not previously considered, Republican Matt Dolan would not have been eligible to run for county executive in 2010. Dolan, a former state legislator, moved from Geauga County to Cuyahoga County shortly before declaring his candidacy in a bid that proved to be unsuccessful.

This proposal is sponsored by Democratic council members Yvvone Conwell, Chuck Germana and Dale Miller, and by Republican Councilman Mike Gallagher.

5. Making the county investment advisory committee part of the county charter

Currently, the committee, which votes on the county's investment policies, is made up of the treasurer, the county executive and a member of county council.

This proposal, which council has not considered before, would replace the county executive with the county prosecutor, who unlike the treasurer, is an independently elected official. 

Greenspan also sponsored this proposed amendment.

6. Changing the composition of some county boards to eliminate instances in which the county executive serves alongside a subordinate employee

This change, also proposed by Greenspan, would affect the composition of the county budget commission, board of revision and audit committee and audit committee.

On the board of revision and the audit committee, the proposal would swap out officials who work for FitzGerald that currently sit on the boards in favor of citizens who are approved by council.

On the budget commission -- which is currently made up of the county executive, the fiscal officer, and the county prosecutor -- the proposal would replace the fiscal officer, who works for FitzGerald, with a member of county council.

7. Extending the timeline for forming a future charter review commission

The proposal is sponsored by Miller, Conwell, Germana and Council President C. Ellen Connally, a Democrat.

The change would give the next charter review commission, which is scheduled to meet next in 2017, more time to complete its work.

# # #

Supreme Court rules on Hobby Lobby and union dues

John Hinderaker at PowerLine reports on the two Supreme Court decisions:

POSTED ON JUNE 30, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER 

Conservative Supreme Court Majority Prevails In Two Key Cases

Today the Supreme Court issued its last two opinions of the term. Justice Alito delivered both opinions, and both were decided on 5-4 votes. Both decisions were eagerly awaited. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court ruled that as applied to closely held corporations, the the contraceptive mandate imposed on employers by Obamacare violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the collection of an “agency fee” to pay for union activities from home health care workers who do not want to join or support the union.

Both of these cases have been viewed as highly significant; Harris, for example, has been characterized as a potential death blow to the union movement. We will have more to say about these decisions after having had an opportunity to study the opinions, but my preliminary impression is that in both cases, the Court ruled narrowly. For example, it did not reach Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment arguments, and it applied Harris only to home health care workers who work for the people they care for, and not to “full-fledged” public employees. It may be that neither is as much a landmark decision as conservatives had hoped, or as liberals had feared.

#  #  #

Crush the tea party in GOP primaries

Art credit: illinoisreview.touchpad.com

Allahpunditat Hot Air has this to say about the Tuesday primaries and Tea Party losses:

Outside groups spent $23 million to crush the tea party in GOP primaries this year

POSTED AT 4:01 PM ON JUNE 26, 2014 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

To be clear, the $23 million here is on top of the cash spent by each GOP incumbent’s own campaign. It doesn’t include a dime of what, say, Mitch McConnell’s operation dropped to defend his seat. This is crony money, showered on establishment candidates to make sure the gravy train keeps running.

The scope of the effort to suppress activist-backed candidates has been broader and costlier than is widely understood, covering at least 20 House and Senate primaries from North Carolina to California, and from coastal Mississippi to the outer tip of Long Island. The loose coalition of establishment forces encompasses two dozen advocacy groups, industry associations and super PACs that have raised and spent millions on behalf of Washington’s chosen candidates.

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said the “quote ‘establishment’” had successfully divided up the primary map this year to avoid duplicating one another’s efforts…

Nearly a third of the establishment money has come from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business lobby’s spending in this year’s toughest primaries has about equaled the $7 million that the conservative Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund have spent together on the most fractious elections — excluding races, like the Senate campaigns in Arkansas and Alaska, where there’s been no meaningful clash between establishment-sanctioned outside groups and the activist right.

Among other big establishment spenders: Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, the National Association of Realtors, and the Main Street Partnership, which vowed months ago to “beat the snot” out of conservatives in primaries and which used to be called the “Republican Main Street Partnership” before it dropped the troublesome “Republican” part. (The NRA also kicked in some money for Thad Cochran, do note.) What’s galling about this isn’t the amount spent or the fact that centrists would rise to meet a challenge from the right on ideological terms. The Club for Growth spends boatloads of money on elections too, after all. What’s galling, especially in the Cochran/McDaniel race, is the sense of how transactional the incumbent’s relationship with his money men is. That’s the real lesson from Mississippi, writes Jay Cost. There was nothing particularly ideological driving Cochran or the Mississippi GOP establishment. This was business. As always, as always, Republicans present themselves as one thing and then behave as something else [emphasis added]:

Cochran is a classic example of the disconnect. He has been in the Senate for nearly forty years. To what lasting conservative triumph is his name attached? I cannot think of any, nor can I think of any fight against the liberal agenda in which he was a crucial ally. Instead, his claim to fame – as he proudly advertised during the campaign – was leveraging his seniority to steer government largesse to Mississippi…

Read the rest here.

# # #

Letter to cleveland.com on the EPA

Art credit: epaabuse.com

  

From Cleveland.com the other day:

EPA rules on carbon emissions forcing out much-needed coal plants: Letter to the Editor

By Other Voices 
on June 19, 2014 at 10:14 AM

I read recently a major utility company said during the polar vortex it turned to coal to generate the additional power we needed – and saved customers more than $100 million than if it had used other fuels!

Many of the plants that rose to meet that challenge are slated to close in the coming year under the latest in a never-ending wave of EPA rules for carbon  dioxide emissions; they won't be available when the next inevitable cold snap (or heat wave) arrives, even though technology is making the use of coal cleaner year by year.

And the EPA continues to implement regulations that with a very few exceptions
will end the use of coal in America's newest power generation plants – abandoning what has historically been our most cost-efficient way of producing electricity. That will mean higher electricity prices for everyone, as utilities are forced to shift to generation fuels such as natural gas that over time have shown greater price volatility.

This misguided approach to regulation is setting up our nation for an economic
disaster. Congress needs to assert its authority under the Constitution as the
setter of public policy and bring the EPA under control.

Ralph King,

Bedford

King is co-founder of the Cleveland Tea Party Patriots.

# # # 

Those "lost" emails

From Sense of Events:

Scary.