If The Republican-Controlled Senate Confirms Obama’s Next USSC Nominee, The GOP Is Finished


…………….

.
The Republican party has been attempting to commit suicide for as long as I can remember, yet, despite its best efforts, it has somehow managed to avoid shooting itself in the head. However, if its leaders decide to confirm Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee, the GOP will bleed out all over the floor, and there’s nobody anywhere who will be able to stop the hemorrhaging.

Simply put, allowing the most corrupt and incompetent president in the history of the republic to replace the recently-departed Antonin Scalia with another Sonia Sotomayor would be criminally negligent on the part of Mitch McConnell and his crew, and even the moderate, Republican rump-swabs at Fox News know it.

The time has come for these go-along-to-get-along asshats to finally take a stand in defense of liberty, justice and the U.S. Contitution, and if they should fail to do so, they will prove once and for all that they never really did give half a shit about their country.

So, do the high mucky-mucks of the GOP have a death wish? I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

.

.

Scalia: The Best Justice Of Our Generation (Joseph Farah)

Scalia: The Best Justice Of Our Generation – Joseph Farah

.

.
Antonin Scalia, a stalwart of constitutionalism on a Supreme Court too often marked by a majority who believed they were the law of the land, is gone.

Our thoughts and prayers are with those who loved him most – his family and close friends.

But, truly, today Americans have reason to pray for their country in his absence.

It’s a dark day for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Darker still because his successor could be named by a president who is salivating at the opportunity to appoint Scalia’s polar opposite to the court.

There is only one thing that can stop him. The U.S. Senate.

Since Americans elected Republicans to a majority in the upper house, the GOP has too often given Obama everything he wanted.

There’s been no opposition in Congress – not since Republicans took the House and not since they took the Senate.

The question is, with just nine months until the next presidential election, will this event awaken Republicans to the seriousness of what this vacancy means to the future of the country? Will Republicans in the Senate use their legitimate authority to thwart Barack Obama from leaving a lasting legacy of this magnitude on the court? Do they have the intestinal fortitude and the courage to fight an appointment from Obama which will inevitably be a horrible one?

Scalia was more than just one of the good guys on the Supreme Court. He was a legal genius. He was an inspiration. Even when he cast his opinion in the minority, his voice was one of searing conscience and principle. He would not easily be replaced by the best president.

You can be sure Obama will make his appointment count for everything he stands for – all of which is bad for America. America can ill afford another lifetime appointment to the court by Obama – especially considering who that nominee is replacing.

If ever there were a time for the Republicans in the Senate to take their duty seriously, for the very preservation of American jurisprudence, this is it.

It’s not a time for appeasement. It’s not a time to seem “reasonable.” It’s not a time for moderation.

It’s a time to pay tribute to Antonin Scalia and what he represented throughout his life and his tenue on the bench.

It’s time to fight to preserve America and the rule of law.

Maybe you say, “Farah, you don’t even know who Obama will appoint. How can you argue for disapproval?”

I’ll tell you how I know.

Obama has made good on his pledge to transform America. He has never disappointed his “progressive” constituents. He won’t do it with this opportunity either.

It’s time to be honest. Obama is incapable of nominating a good Supreme Court justice.

We’ve seen his track record.

It’s not time to get along. It’s not time to play nice. It’s time to save America.

The Senate has the power to do that. It’s controlled by Republicans. No Republican should sit by and watch Obama pack the Supreme Court with one of his ideologues.

It’s time to rally opposition now – even before Obama acts.

We need to put the Republicans in the Senate on notice. Any one of them who gives Obama a pass on this needs to go. This is what America voted for in 2014 – to stop the conciliation, to ignite some opposition, this is the moment when all Republicans will be asked to do the right thing.

Even in the absence of Scalia, the Supreme Court is now much weaker than it has been.

Republicans shouldn’t worry about being accused of playing politics. They’ve been playing politics too long. Now it’s time to get to work and be the opposition they were elected to be.

.

.

With The Loss Of Our Wisest Supreme Court Justice, I Now Share Some Of His Wisdom With You All


The following is an article I wrote in February of 2005 about a debate on foreign law influences upon the American legal system between originalist Justice Antonin Scalia and activist Justice Stephen Breyer. I hope you find it illuminating.

.

.
WHO WILL SPEAK FOR YOU?
By Edward L. Daley

A few weeks ago I was watching a program on C-Span pertaining to the impact of foreign court opinions upon the U.S. justice system. The primary participants in the discussion were Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, and the event took place at the American University Law School in Washington D.C.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc011305_scalia.rm

The debate revolved around questions asked by a moderator named Professor Norman Dorsen, and the first multi-part question asked was, “When we talk about the use of foreign court decisions in U.S. Constitutional cases, what body of foreign law are we talking about? Are we limiting this to foreign constitutional law? What about cases involving international law, such as the interpretation of treaties, including treaties to which the U.S. is a party? When we talk about the use of foreign court decisions in U.S. law, do we mean them to be authority, or persuasive, or rhetorical? If, for example, foreign court decisions are not understood to be precedent in U.S. Constitutional cases, are they nevertheless able to strengthen the sense that U.S. law assures a common moral and legal framework with the rest of the world? If this is so, is that in order to strengthen the legitimacy of a decision within the U.S., or to strengthen a decision’s legitimacy in the rest of the world?

Some question, huh? I don’t think I’d be comfortable trying to answer it all in one fell swoop, and apparently neither did the two justices. Justice Scalia began his reply by stating that most of the parts of it should be posed to Justice Breyer, simply because Scalia does not use foreign law in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

He stated that he will use it when interpreting a treaty, because treaties are based upon a mutual understanding of the law by the signatories thereof. That seemed like a no-brainer to me, and the point was not argued by Breyer.

Scalia went on to say that, aside from that, he refuses to use foreign decisions in Constitutional law. He argued that some justices refer to foreign law because they want to feel assured that we have the same “moral and legal framework as the rest of the world.” He then pointed out, quite matter-of-factly, that we don’t have the same moral and legal framework, and we never have.

He continued by referring to the Federalist Papers, saying that they are full of statements which make it clear that our founding fathers had little respect for the laws of European countries in that day and age, citing a passage by James Madison to that effect. He then asked the rhetorical question, should we be willing to change our laws based upon the fact that many of them are not in step with the vast majority of foreign law decisions, mentioning the issues of abortion on demand, and the exclusionary rule relative to ‘Miranda’ as examples.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist
http://www.robertslaw.org/4thamend.htm

He went on to ask the question, why haven’t we changed these laws if the court feels we should use foreign law… or do we just use foreign law selectively, whenever it agrees with what an individual justice would like a particular case to say? He then asked what the criterion is for citing foreign law, if doing so is not meant to be authoritative.

Justice Breyer responded by saying, among other things, that law emerges from conversations among law practitioners, law students, and academics. He recounted an event at which he was first confronted with the question of whether or not foreign law decisions should be considered by U.S. courts. He described a past seminar he’d attended with various judges and law makers wherein a Congressman had remarked that he thought it was a terrible idea to use foreign law in U.S. court decisions.

Breyer reflected that he’d told the Congressman “Of course foreign law doesn’t bind us in Constitutional law. Of course not.” But, he added, these [foreign justices] are human beings who often have problems which are similar to our own.

He mentioned that the societies about which these foreign decisions are concerned, are becoming more and more democratic, and that in a case which is similar to one he might face as a Supreme Court Justice, “why don’t I read what he says, if it’s similar enough?” Apparently the Congressman he was speaking to at the time said fine, go ahead and read it, just don’t cite it in your legal opinion.

Breyer’s response to this remark had been that since foreign courts cite our Supreme Court’s findings in their decisions, he didn’t see anything wrong with citing theirs in his. He added that by doing so, we might actually lend credibility to their laws, or as he put it, “give them a leg up.” The Congressman’s response was that Justice Breyer should simply write them a letter of approval instead, if he felt that way.

At that point, Breyer seemed to stall, relating that the Congressman had “made a point,” and then failing to explain why he felt that position wasn’t essentially correct. He went on to refer to Justice Scalia’s implication that we do not understand enough about any particular foreign decision to cite it responsibly, asking, “how do we know we cite both sides” of an argument in foreign law cases? “How do we know we look for everything?” His answer to both of those questions was that such problems arise in every sort of citation. “A judge can do what he’s supposed to do, or not,” he continued, “and we hope they do what they’re supposed to do.

This is where he lost me, and, apparently, where he lost Justice Scalia as well. After all, the fact that American justices face decisions without looking at every possible viewpoint available in the written law, has nothing to do with the fact that foreign law systems are often completely alien to our own. It’s not a question of whether or not we are able to see every bit of available information, but rather that the systems by which other countries arrive at legal decisions are usually not very similar to ours. Also, as Scalia pointed out, other legal systems may only have adopted part of a law that has originated in the U.S. (e.g. Miranda), and ignored other parts (e.g. the exclusionary rule) that are just as important to the fundamental principle underlying that law.

I found it interesting that Justice Breyer first announced that foreign law is “of course” not binding in Constitutional law, yet followed up that point by giving reasons, ostensibly, why it should be.

Justice Scalia seemed just as confused as I was by certain points that Breyer had made, beginning his retort by declaring, “I don’t know what it means to express confidence that judges will do what they ought to do, after having read the foreign law. My problem is that I don’t know what they ought to do. What is it that they ought to do? You have to ask yourselves, why is it that foreign law would be relevant to what an American judge does when he interprets – INTERPRETS – not writes [the law]… it [foreign law] is very useful in devising a Constitution, but why is it useful in interpreting one?

Scalia then explained his basic theory as it relates to the interpretation of the Constitution, saying that he tries to understand what it means, and what society understood it to mean when it was adopted, adding that his philosophy used to be orthodoxy prior to the 1940s. He stated that foreign law is irrelevant to anyone who embraces that philosophy, with the exception of old English law, because of the fact that many of our legal definitions were taken from that to begin with.

He went on to relate two other approaches to interpreting the Constitution. The first, he explained, was the notion that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it meant when it was first ratified, but that it changes from era to era to conform to, as Scalia then quoted, “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” – Troy v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101

At that point he mentioned that he detests that phrase, arguing that societies don’t necessarily mature, and that “sometimes they rot.” However, he opined, even if you buy into that theory, you are still primarily concerned with the standards of decency of Americans, not foreigners, and that the only way a person would ever be willing to accept the standards of other countries as being applicable to our standards, is if that individual espoused a third way of interpreting the Constitution.

That third philosophical approach, Scalia continued, says “I am not looking for the evolving standards of decency of American society, I’m looking for what is the best answer in my mind, as an intelligent judge. And for that purpose, I look to other intelligent people, and I talk sometimes about conversations with judges, and lawyers, and law students. Do you [the law students in the audience] think you’re representative of American society? Do you not realize you are a small, cream at the top, and that your views on innumerable things are not the views of America at large? And doesn’t it seem somewhat arrogant of you to say I can make up what the moral values of America should be on all sorts of issues?

The whole time he was saying this, Breyer looked as if he’d just swallowed a prune pit, since he clearly understood (as did I, and probably everyone else watching) that Scalia had just implied he was arrogant. Once Justice Scalia had concluded by saying that he did not wish to undertake the responsibility of deciding what is moral and what isn’t for all of society, Justice Breyer commented, “I think that’s pretty good.

It’s really because I think, and I think many judges think, that your own moral views are not the answer, that people look other places for trying to find out – how to find answers,” he added. Yet once again his statement didn’t have any bearing upon the issue raised. The question isn’t whether one should look for answers as to what may be the morally right thing to do, but rather, where it is they’re looking!

Breyer pointed out that there is “nothing in ‘Blackstone,’ ‘Bracton’ or even ‘King Arthur,’ that says that cruel and unusual punishment – to determine that – you cannot look, except to England, or except to the United States… So, there’s nothing barring me.” This statement is a dead giveaway that Breyer believes it is reasonable to define morality in America based upon what other countries think, or upon what members of the legal profession think. Does it really need to be written that American moral issues should be decided by the American citizenry? Isn’t that just plain common sense?
http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_william_blackstone.htm
http://culaw2.creighton.edu/rarebooks/display1/bracton’s.htm
http://www.gongfa.com/common%20lawbuliedianbaike.htm

Apparently Justice Breyer doesn’t think so. Even though he goes to the trouble of saying once again that he doesn’t look to himself to determine the answers to moral questions within the law, the undercurrent running throughout his remarks is that he’s willing to let someone other than the American people make the call.

But I’m thinking, Well, on this kind of an issue you’re asking a human question, and the Americans are human – and so is everybody else,” Breyer states, “and I don’t know, it doesn’t determine it, but it’s an effort to reach out beyond myself to see how other people have done… So I’d have to say I’d rather have the uncertainties and I’d rather have the judge understanding that he’s looking but it’s not controlling. And I’d rather have him use it with care, hoping that the judges won’t lack the control to do so. Then I would like to have an absolute rule that says legally never. And the fact that I cannot find such an absolute rule – legally never – even in King Arthur – gives me some cause for hope.

Hope? Hope of what?

Justice Scalia carried on the conversation by repeating the points he’d made before, discussing in greater detail certain cases in support of his argument, and stating that “One of the difficulties of using foreign law is that you don’t understand what the surrounding jurisprudence is, so that you can say, you know, Russia follows Miranda, but you don’t know that Russia doesn’t have an exclusionary rule.

He said that it was unfair to compare American death penalty cases, and the issue of whether it is cruel and inhuman for someone to wait a dozen years before being executed, to similar foreign cases. His basic point was that foreign and American cases were not comparable because of the enormous differences in the way each system deals with the death penalty to begin with. The question of what might be considered cruel and unusual in one country would not apply to another for that reason, and, therefore, would be rendered irrelevant.

This argument seemed to be completely lost on Breyer, as was evidenced by the fact that he responded with the following statement: “Well, it’s relevant in the sense that you have a person who’s a judge, who has similar training, who’s trying to, let’s say, apply a similar document, something like cruel and unusual or – there are different words, but they come to roughly the same thing – who has a society that’s somewhat structured like ours.

At that point Justice Scalia wisely decided to ask the moderator for a new question, and the professor’s response was to say that, “Although you have suggested your view about this, I’m still unclear about what the harm or risk is of considering foreign sources that may bear on problems that are common to both countries. For example, you mentioned the – both of you have mentioned the death penalty. Why shouldn’t U.S. constitutional decisions take account of shifting world standards on such things as the death penalty, on the execution of juveniles, on the execution of the mentally ill? Are we that far from the rest of the world in terms of the way life is lived?

The first thing I thought after hearing this was WHAT AN IDIOT! However, even though I suspect that Scalia was thinking the same thing, he showed enough restraint to continue the conversation without becoming insulting to his host, and eventually related that in his dissenting opinion regarding a homosexual sodomy case, he’d pointed out that the court had cited only European law. “Of course,” remarked Scalia, “they [the Europeans] said it not by some democratic ballot, but by decree of the European Court of Human Rights, who was, you know, using the same theory that we lawyers and judges and law students – we know what’s moral and what isn’t.

Breyer attempted to water down the argument, by infusing some mundane legal point into the mix, but the issue’s course was quickly corrected by Scalia when he related that, “it [the matter of selectively citing foreign decisions] lends itself to manipulation. It lends itself – It invites manipulation.” His subsequent remarks on that score were nothing short of eloquent, and were masterfully reproachful of Justice Breyer’s opinion without actually being too insulting to the man personally.

Justice Breyer was quick to change the subject, saying, “Can I go into a different topic? Because I – it’s slightly – it’s still international application. But I’m curious what my colleague thinks of this because I actually do believe, which I’ve said several times, that this is really a very dramatic issue and so forth, but it isn’t really the important issue to me.

Of course it wasn’t the important issue to him at that point in the conversation. He’d just had his head handed to him, figuratively speaking, and was obviously perplexed as to how he could continue to address Scalia’s line of reasoning without either agreeing with him, or looking like a jackass.

Be that as it may, he then went on to talk about a few cases which were, as he put it, “much less glamorous,” rounding out his comments by asserting, “this world we live in is a world where I think it’s out of date for people to teach about foreign law in a course called ‘foreign law.’ I think it’s in date to teach in contract law or in tort law, because those are the cases we’re getting.

I must admit that in certain cases relative to contract law, where companies deal with one another internationally, there are foreign law principles which may well permeate the meat of the matter. But the supposition that the more important and far-reaching moral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, pertaining to American societal norms and conventions, should necessarily be dependent upon the whims of foreign law decision-makers, merely because such is the case in the aforementioned respects, is ridiculous on its face. But then, that’s just my opinion.

Later on, Mr. Dorsen queried, “The question I have in my own mind is whether this question is a naive question. And that is, rather than looking at foreign courts to say Greece decided our way, the United Kingdom decided our way, X country decided a different way, another country has a different view, rather than thinking about these courts and cases in terms of the results to think about them in terms of the persuasiveness of the opinions, just as a New York court might look at a Montana decision and be influenced not by the result of the Montana court or the Wyoming court or the Illinois court but by the cogency of the arguments, by the depth of the reasoning, by the logic.

To which Justice Scalia responded, “Well, you’re begging the question. I mean, your question assumes that it is up to the judge to find THE correct answer. And I deny that. I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that’s what it says, that’s what it says.

Ask yourself why Antonin Scalia would say such a thing. If you understand the role of a judge in the American system of government, the answer should be obvious. It’s not his job to write the law, only to interpret it. Writing law is the job of the legislative and executive branches. Even if he disagrees with the law he’s considering, he has no lawful authority to change it, nor should it be his desire to do so. You see, Judge Scalia understands the fundamental principle behind the words “separation of powers,” and he actually practices what he preaches.

Furthermore, he proves his allegiance to the Constitution, and to the American people when he contends, “And on these Constitutional questions, you’re not going to come up with a right or wrong answer; most of them involve moral sentiments. You can have arguments on one side and on the other, but what you have to ask yourself is what does American society think?” Although the discussion continued for nearly another half hour, nothing was said by anyone present which was more profound than that, so I won’t bother reiterating further.

Suffice it to say that if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I’d ask myself the following questions:

Do judges in the U.S., at any level of jurisprudence, consider the Constitution to be satisfactory or not?

If not, what other nation has exhibited the capacity to improve upon it, or even to approach its standards of excellence in such a way as to be worthy of my consideration of its views?

Should justices of the highest court in the land be allowed to speak for the attitudes of the American people, while simultaneously ignoring them, respectful only of the opinions of elitists from other countries, and/or the American legal intelligencia?

In short, do we really want these people making moral judgments for the rest of us?

I may not be a law professor, an attorney, a judge, or even a formal student of the practice, but it seems to me that the law should be based, at least in part, on common sense and practicality. It should also be reflective of the will of the American people, if it is to have any true weight at all.

As Ulysses S. Grant once said, “The will of the people is the best law.

.

.

*LIVE STREAMING* CBS News Republican Presidential Primary Debate (02/13/16 – 9:00pm ET)



…………………………Click on image above for live stream.

Alternate Stream 1
Alternate Stream 2
Alternate Stream 2
Alternate Stream 4
Alternate Stream 5
Alternate Stream 6

Participants: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush

.

.

A Tragic Loss For The Republic – Originalist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead At 79

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead At 79 – New York Post

.

.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was found dead Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. MySanAntonio.com said he died of apparent natural causes.

Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people, the website of the San Antonio Express News said. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation, according to the report.

Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.

A woman who answered the phone at the ranch told the Post she was unaware of the justice’s death, and no manager was available to discuss the matter.

A federal official who asked not to be named told the San Antonio Express News paper there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

Scalia was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

.

.

Mark Levin Receives Unprecedented Nine-Year Radio Contract Extension

Mark Levin Receives Lifetime Contract For Radio Show – Daily Wire

.

.
On Thursday, Westwood One announced that conservative radio giant Mark Levin’s talk show has been renewed through 2025, essentially a lifetime contract. The network stated: Levin, one of the most important, popular, and trusted voices in radio, is always at the top of the political conversation. Indeed, his name has been invoked by candidates throughout the presidential primary process during the debates and at campaign rallies.”

Levin’s fearlessness in standing for conservative principles has been demonstrated consistently over the years. As Sean Hannity said of Levin, “He has not moved. He has not changed. He believes the principles that were applied back when worked then, and if applied now to today’s problems would be just as effective.”

Some of the over 300 stations on which Levin appears include WABC-AM/New York; KRLA-AM/Los Angeles; WLS-AM/Chicago; KSFO-AM/San Francisco; WBAP-AM/Dallas; KTRH-AM/Houston; WMAL-AM/Washington, DC; WJR-AM/Detroit; and WNTP-AM/Philadelphia.

Levin said, “I could not be more pleased to extend my radio partnership with Cumulus/Westwood One. For the next nine years – an unprecedented long-term relationship in the broadcasting industry – I am committed to continuing to bring the best possible program, both substantive and entertaining, to my millions of beloved and loyal listeners each and every day.”

Bart Tessler, Westwood One EVP, News & Talk, enthused, “We couldn’t be more pleased to announce this lifetime agreement with Mark. To know that we’ll be working together for so many years is a Mark Levin Show primary victory and a big win for affiliates, advertisers, and listeners. Mark’s tenure will now exceed that of a two-term president and that means continued excellence on the air on a nightly basis.”

Levin’s glittery resume includes his work as an attorney before he soared to acting as a top adviser and administrator to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet. He rose to the position of Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. Levin serves as the president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation, a non-profit legal advocacy group based in Leesburg, VA.

Levin’s prolific writing career has seen him writing numerous New York Times best-selling books, including: “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”; “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto”; “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America”; “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic”; and “Plunder and Deceit: Big Government’s Exploitation of Young People and the Future.”

Honored by the American Conservative Union, Hillsdale College, The Fund for American Studies, The Media Research Center, and Citizens United/Breitbart. Levin received his B. A. degree, with numerous honors, from Temple University, and his J.D. degree from Temple University School of Law.

.

.

How Are The Early GOP Primaries/Caucuses Shaking Out?


.

IOWA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of January 31, 2016)
Donald Trump: 28.6%
Ted Cruz: 23.9%
Marco Rubio: 16.9%
Ben Carson: 7.7%
Jeb Bush: 4.1%
John Kasich: 2.9%
Carly Fiorina: 2.6%
Chris Christie: 2.4%

RESULTS (February 1, 2016)
Ted Cruz: Votes – 51,666 (27.64%) —— Delegates Won: 8
Donald Trump: Votes – 45,429 (24.30%) —— Delegates Won: 7
Marco Rubio: Votes – 43,228 (23.12%) —— Delegates Won: 7
Ben Carson: Votes – 17,394 (9.30%) —— Delegates Won: 3
Jeb Bush: Votes – 5,238 (2.80%) —— Delegates Won: 1
Carly Fiorina: Votes – 3,485 (1.86%) —— Delegates Won: 1
John Kasich: Votes – 3,474 (1.86%) —— Delegates Won: 1
Chris Christie: Votes – 3,284 (1.76%) —— Delegates Won: 0

.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of February 4, 2016)
Donald Trump: 31.2%
Marco Rubio: 14.0%
John Kasich: 13.5%
Ted Cruz: 11.8%
Jeb Bush: 11.5%
Chris Christie: 5.8%
Carly Fiorina: 4.8%
Ben Carson: 2.8%

RESULTS (February 9, 2016)
Donald Trump: Votes – 92,417 (35.13%) —— Delegates Won: 10
John Kasich: Votes – 41,814 (15.90%) —— Delegates Won: 3
Ted Cruz: Votes – 30,417 (11.56%) —— Delegates Won: 2
Jeb Bush: Votes – 29,188 (11.10%) —— Delegates Won: 2
Marco Rubio: Votes – 27,776 (10.56%) —— Delegates Won: 0
Chris Christie: Votes – 19,812 (7.53%) —— Delegates Won: 0
Carly Fiorina: Votes – 10,967 (4.17%) —— Delegates Won: 0
Ben Carson: Votes – 5,969 (2.27%) —— Delegates Won: 0

.

SOUTH CAROLINA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of February 11, 2016)
Donald Trump: 37.3%
Ted Cruz: 20.3%
Marco Rubio: 14.0%
Jeb Bush: 9.3%
Ben Carson: 7.3%
John Kasich: 4.0%

RESULTS (February 20, 2016)
Donald Trump:
Ted Cruz:
Marco Rubio:
Jeb Bush:
Ben Carson:
John Kasich:

.

NEVADA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of December 27, 2015)
Donald Trump: 33.0%
Ted Cruz: 20.0%
Marco Rubio: 11.0%
Ben Carson: 6.0%
Jeb Bush: 5.0%
John Kasich: 0.0%

RESULTS (February 23, 2016)
Donald Trump:
Ted Cruz:
Marco Rubio:
Ben Carson:
Jeb Bush:
John Kasich:

.

*PODCAST* The Andrew Klavan Show

THE MEDIA LEVEL THEIR GUNS AT CRUZ AND RUBIO


……………………………Click on image above for podcast

MORE:

THREE REASONS OBAMA VISITED A TERRORIST MOSQUE

TRUMP’S NO TOUGH GUY, HE JUST PLAYS ONE ON TV

IOWA MAKES CAUCUSES GREAT AGAIN

IOWA: HOW SCREWED ARE WE?


.

*PODCAST* The Ben Shapiro Show

#BEYONCEHALFTIMESOBLACK



MORE:

HILLARY CLINTON IS A FLAMING GARBAGE HEAP

TRUMP FINALLY GOES NUCLEAR

THE GREATEST IOWA CAUCUSES EVER

IOWA IS TONIGHT – I HATE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING


.

*AUDIO* Mark Steyn And Howie Carr Discuss The Presidential Primaries (02/05/16)

.

.

Another Record-Setting January For Gun Sales In U.S.

January Gun Sales Set Yet Another Record – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
The FBI conducted more gun-related background checks this January than in any other January since the system was created.

With 2,545,802 checks processed through the National Instant Background Check System, January 2016 beat the previous record, set in January 2013, by 50,326 checks. Though January’s number represents a drop from the all-time single month record set in December 2015, it is also marks the ninth month in a row that has set a record. It is also the third month in a row with more than two million background checks.

The number of background checks conducted by the FBI is widely considered the most reliable estimate for gun sales in the country since all sales conducted through federally licensed gun dealers and some sales conducted by private parties are required by law to obtain a check.

However, the number is not a one-to-one representation of gun sales. Many private sales are not included in the system. Also, in some cases a single background check can apply to the sale of multiple guns. Some states use background checks for their gun carry permitting process, which does not involve the sale of a gun.

The new record comes in the wake of President Obama’s executive action targeting gun sales. The White House had signaled that those selling even one firearm in their lifetime could be subject to federal licensing requirements, though it was later revealed that the written guidance issued by the ATF was at odds with the administration’s public comments.

A steady stream of comments supportive of gun control by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may also have contributed to record sales.

A move by Virginia Democrats to unilaterally eliminate gun carry reciprocity agreements with 25 states also received national attention in January. The policy was instituted by the state’s attorney general after the party failed to recapture the state Senate despite millions from gun control advocates. The backlash to the plan was strong enough that the state’s Democratic governor reversed it in a deal with Republicans.

The Second Amendment Foundation said the continued spike in gun sales was in line with other indicators from around the country.

“The Boston Globe reported last week that tens of thousands of new gun licenses were issued in Massachusetts last year,” Alan Gottlieb, the group’s founder, said in a statement. “In New Jersey, with tough gun laws, applications for gun purchases last year nearly tripled over what they were in 2005. One Missouri county reported a three-month back-up in processing permit applications. A county sheriff in North Carolina is so overwhelmed, he’s asking that citizens make appointments.”

“Add to this the fact that scores of sheriffs and police chiefs have encouraged citizens to arm themselves. Suddenly, gun ownership sounds like a very good idea to people concerned about personal safety,” Gottlieb said.

.

.

Rand Paul Calls It Quits

Rand Paul Dropping Out Of Presidential Race – WCTI

.

.
Rand Paul, the libertarian-minded freshman senator who was once viewed as a formidable presidential contender, is suspending his White House bid.

Paul discussed the matter with staff Wednesday morning and sent out a statement confirming the decision to drop out of the Republican presidential primary.

“It’s been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House,” Paul said in the statement. “Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty.”

Paul, a Kentucky Republican, is expected to instead place his focus squarely on his Senate reelection bid, where he faces a wealthy Democrat, Lexington Mayor Jim Gray, who has the money to partially finance his campaign.

Paul finished a disappointing fifth place in Monday’s Iowa caucuses, registering just 4.5% of the vote despite placing a heavy emphasis on the state’s college towns to bring out younger voters inspired by his libertarian-minded message. He promised that night to continue his campaign.

Paul will not make an endorsement in the GOP presidential race before next week’s New Hampshire primary, his spokesman Sergio Gor told CNN.

But sources close to Paul said a morning-after review made clear to Paul that there was not a viable path to winning the Republican nomination and that fund-raising was becoming extremely difficult.

Indeed, as the New Hampshire primary approaches, where his father Ron Paul won 23% of the vote in 2012, polls have found the younger Paul struggling to gain traction.

Paul’s calls for a less aggressive foreign policy, which his critics have dubbed as “isolationist,” failed to connect with GOP voters at a time of growing national security fears. Moreover, Paul had a hard time reestablishing his father’s libertarian coalition because he had sought to broaden his appeal to more establishment-minded Republicans, hurting his credibility with some in his core base of supporters.

Dropping out this early is a disappointment for Paul. He had engineered a major change in Kentucky’s primary system to allow him to run for two offices at the same time, a move aimed at circumventing a prohibition in state law prohibiting candidates from doing so. The state party agreed to change its traditional paper ballot primary to a caucus system in early March, in order to let him avoid the restriction that he couldn’t appear on the ballot twice.

Still, as he now focuses on his Senate race, he remains the heavy favorite in a state that has grown increasingly red.

“The Democrat Party in Kentucky has been very wounded by President Obama,” Paul told CNN Sunday when asked if he were concerned about Gray’s candidacy.

Paul’s campaign account tweeted a reminiscent video Wednesday morning, thanking his supporters and featuring highlights from the senator’s presidential bid.

.

.

Carson Accuses Cruz Of Spreading Fake Story About Him Dropping Out Of Race Before Iowa Vote

‘This Is Horsesh*t’… Carson Camp Accuses Cruz Of Foul Play In Iowa – Daily Caller

.

.
Following Ted Cruz ‘s Monday victory in Iowa, Ben Carson’s campaign claimed the Texas senator leaked information that the former neurosurgeon was suspending his campaign just before the votes were cast.

According to Time, several members of Carson’s staff have brought forward evidence “alleging misconduct by the Cruz campaign.”

Carson’s Iowa director Ryan Rhodes reportedly received text messages from Mike Huckabee supporters claiming “the Cruz speakers at our caucus announced Carson was suspending his campaign for a while after caucus. They did this before the vote. Same thing happened at another caucus. Sounds like slimy Cruzing to me.”

Additionally, a precinct chair in Muscatine sent Carson’s team an email claiming that a Cruz supporter told the precinct “Ben Carson was taking a break after Iowa, and then stated, ‘so you might want to rethink wasting your vote on him.’”

“That is really quite a dirty trick,” Carson told reporters late Monday night. “That’s the very kind of thing that irritated me enough to get into this quagmire.”

Furthermore, campaign manager Ed Brookover called Cruz’s alleged actions “the lowest of low in American politics,” while Carson’s Iowa co-chair state representative Rob Taylor noted that, “this is horseshit.”

The Cruz campaign has denied any wrongdoing.

.
————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Cruz Camp: ‘It’s Just False’ We Hurt Carson In Iowa – The Hill

Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign is rejecting Ben Carson’s assertion that it torpedoed his chances in Iowa’s Republican caucuses Monday night.

“On the Ben Carson allegation, it’s just false,” said Rick Tyler, the Cruz campaign’s communications director, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “We simply as a campaign repeated what Ben Carson had said in his own words,” he continued. “That’s not a dirty trick.”

“He said after Iowa he was going to go back to Florida for a couple of days and then he was going to go to D.C. for the prayer breakfast,” Tyler added. “And what that told us was he was not going to New Hampshire.

“That was really surprising by a campaign who was once leading in Iowa saying he’s not going to come to New Hampshire. That’s a news item.”

Carson criticized his Republican presidential rivals, without naming names, for “dirty tricks” in Iowa.

The retired neurosurgeon lashed out following tweets from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who also serves as co-chairman of Cruz’s national campaign. King said departing Iowa is “the equivalent” of suspending an Oval Office bid after Carson returned home to Florida that evening.

Tyler also argued that GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump made several decisions that blunted his own Iowa momentum.

“It hurt him,” he said of Trump’s decision to skip the last Republican presidential debate before the Iowa contest. “I don’t think it hurt him badly, but it definitely hurt him.”

Tyler then charged that Sarah Palin’s endorsement of the outspoken billionaire last month did not boost his standing with voters.

“[It gave him] no real bump,” he said of the backing from the former Republican vice presidential nominee.

Cruz celebrated his win in Iowa as a “victory for the grass roots” late Monday after conquering the first-in-the-nation caucuses there.

.

.

*VIDEO* While You’re Worried About The Results Of The Iowa Caucuses, Ed Considers Life, The Universe And Everything

.

.

*VIDEO* Prissy Holly: Exposing Mark Zuckerberg And A Direct Message For The Rape-ugees In Europe

.

.

Iowa: Cruz Campaign’s Last-Minute Voter Shaming Tactic Not Going Over Well

Unbelievable: Ted Cruz Campaign Sends Out Personal “Shaming Letters” To Iowa Voters – Conservative Treehouse

It has now been confirmed – The photograph of Ted Cruz campaign shaming letters is legit (see below). The letters are officially from the Ted Cruz campaign.
.

Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler confirmed to IJ Review that the mailer was theirs in a phone call Friday evening, saying that the targeting had been “very narrow, but the caucuses are important and we want people who haven’t voted before to vote.” (link)

.

.
The personalized letters target individual Iowa voters and identifies them as having failed to vote in prior elections. They are admonished and then encouraged to vote this year. In addition the letters identify the neighbors of the voter, and provides their voting history.

The text reads:
.

“You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors’ are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses”.

.

.
In an effort to shame the recipient, the notice also informs the targeted voter their neighbors have also been notified of the recipients poor voting record.

How the Cruz Team would think a public shaming campaign is a good idea is just staggeringly unbelievable.

The campaign scheme was exposed via Twitter where “Tom Hinkeldy, a resident of Alta, Iowa, tweeted a photo (which was later deleted because it included his personal address) on Friday evening of a mailer Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign sent addressed to his wife, Steffany” – link

Word spread rapidly.

————————————————————————————————–

Apsinthos
@YugeMilo

Hey @tedcruz your brilliant public shaming campaign has inspired me to caucus on Monday… For @realDonaldTrump

10:30 PM – 29 Jan 2016
————————————————————————————————–

The first name on the mailer list matches the name on the envelope at the top of the page. The envelope also has a returned address as “Paid for by Cruz for President”, the official campaign name of Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign (not a super-pac):

.

.
Another Iowan, Braddock Massey, tweeted a photo of the mailer he received:

————————————————————————————————–
RBe
@RBPundit

@Braddock_Massey Black out the address and resend!
————————————————————————————————–
Braddock Massey
@Braddock_Massey

@RBPundit pic.twitter.com/FBjxaipH9p
11:29 PM – 29 Jan 2016


————————————————————————————————–

This has the very real potential to be a massive fail and seriously backfire against the Ted Cruz campaign. He might have just given Marco Rubio a considerable gift with the Iowa election only two days away.

From the candidate who prefers to keep his own records, well,… sealed.

UPDATE 5:00am: It looks like Howie might have found the trail, via a professor in Northern Iowa named Christopher Larimer. Describing a previous stunt like this in Alaska. As outlined in a 2014 PBS article:
.

[…] “Why would they think that shaming would make people comply?”

Because, well, it does. That’s according to Chris Larimer, associate professor of political science at the University of Northern Iowa. And he’s done the research to prove it.

“We found that when you make people aware of the norm of voting and that somebody else is going to observe whether or not you vote, people are more likely then to vote,” he said.

The letter from the so-called Alaska State Voter Project is nearly identical, word for word, to one that Larimer and other researchers tested in Michigan, right down to the typography and punctuation. In that 2006 research, Larimer and colleagues sent voters one of four different letters.

The softest message just urged people to do their civic duty and vote. The most aggressive letter matched the Alaska mailer. It included the addressee’s voting history as well as those of their neighbors, and contained something of a threat by promising a follow-up letter to show the results of the upcoming election.

Larimer says they got complaints, but the technique worked quite well. (read more)

.
That emboldened segment describes the current Cruz Campaign mailer 100%. Also, Chris Larimer is noted in this recent Texas Tribune article about the controversial debate:
.

[…] For Cruz, the No. 2 candidate in many polls, Trump’s snub could make him the center of action at the Iowa Events Center, a role that comes with both risks and rewards.

“If Trump’s not there, it affects the strategy other candidates take toward Cruz,” said Christopher Larimer, a political science professor at the University of Northern Iowa. “Do they treat Cruz like the frontrunner, or do they talk about Trump?”

At the same time, Larimer added, the debate could be a “lost opportunity” for Cruz to challenge Trump on his conservative credentials in what’s likely their last meeting before the caucuses. (read more)

.
Looks like another one of those ever brilliant political consultant types sold the Cruz campaign on a version of their already extensive “psychographic analytics“. Wouldn’t be surprised if billionaire Phd Robert Mercer, via Cambridge Analytica targeting – isn’t involved in the engineering of this too.

.

.
UPDATE: Chris Larimer distances himself from this fiasco via the Washington Post:

————————————————————————————————–
Christopher Larimer
@chriswlarimer

The blogosphere rumor is completely false. I do NOT work for the Cruz (or any) campaign and have absolutely nothing to do with mailings.

2:13 PM – 30 Jan 2016
————————————————————————————————–

.

[…] “As a researcher who has done randomized field experiments with get out the vote mailings,” Larimer wrote in an email, “what I can say is that mailings that call attention to an individual’s vote history as well as that of their neighbors’ have been shown to be effective in terms of significantly increasing voter turnout. We draw on norm compliance theory which suggests that publicizing behavior regarding a social norm increases the likelihood of norm compliance.”

That was if the ad was crafted in a smart way. “The Cruz mailing is more negative than anything we have done and has the potential to elicit a negative response or what psychologists call ‘reactance’ or ‘boomerang effect,’” warned Larimer. “The mailing also states that a ‘follow up notice’ will be sent following the caucuses on Monday. This is not possible as caucus turnout is private and maintained by the parties.” (link)

.

.

*VIDEO* Steven Crowder: Gun Show “Loophole” Exposed

.

.

Cruz V. Trump: Top Ten Endorsements So Far


Sarah Palin – Former Alaska Governor/Former Republican Party Vice Presidential Nominee
Ted Nugent – Rock Star/Television Star/2nd Amendment Activist
Willie Robertson – Christian Minister/Businessman/Television Star
Ann Coulter – Book Author/Columnist/Television-Radio Commentator
Joe Arpaio – Former DEA Special Agent/Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff
Mike Ditka – Former NFL Player/Former Coach/Hall Of Fame Inductee
Geert Wilders – Founder And Leader Of Dutch Party For Freedom/Anti-Islam Activist
Carl Icahn – Business Magnate/Philanthropist
Jeffrey Lord – Former Reagan Administration Political Director/Strategist
Virgil Goode – Former U.S. Representative From Virginia/Former Constitution Party Presidential Nominee

.

Louie Gohmert – U.S. Representative From Texas
Brent Bozell – Founder And President Of The Media Research Center/Columnist
Glenn Beck – Former Television Host/Talk Radio Host/Book Author
Phil Robertson – Businessman/Television Star
Andrew C. McCarthy – Former Assistant U.S. Attorney From New York/Book Author/Columnist
Adam Carolla – Former Television Host/Talk Radio Host
R. Lee Ermey – Former U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant/Movie Star/Television Host
Tom Tancredo – Former U.S. Representative From Colorado
Steve King – U.S. Representative From Iowa
C.L. Bryant – Christian Minister/Talk Radio Host

.
By the way, these are the sort of folks who endorse Democrat candidates for President:

.

.