The candidate of the only principled party left...

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” ~ Daniel Webster

Well, looks like it's gonna be a really tough year for the few of us left with any principled integrity in our desire and pursuit of a more righteous leader this presidential cycle. Americans are once again choosing the hard way (at least for the next four years) if our course can't be corrected over the coming summer.

Democrats have always been out for me. I'm just not into the top-down -isms of the Left, so Hillary or Bernie have never been a consideration. However, I'm also not into cults, vis-à-vis Trumpism, so looks like the Republican pick is out as well. I know, I know: "If I'm not voting for X, I'm voting for Y." I'll let those parties have their fun, as both have left conservatism behind, so now I'm simply returning the favor. Goodbye.

I had considered the Libertarians most recently; however, they managed to royally screw that up this weekend (or rather shooting themselves in the foot might be a more appropriate analogy), so they're now out too.

Either which way one looks, millions more than usual are experiencing a heightened degree of disenfranchisement in what's culminated before us. But the singular bright spot in this abysmal disaster is that more than ever you have a reason to hold steadfast to your principles!

So thus far, it looks like any principled choice consists of either writing in Ted Cruz, or voting for the candidate of the only principled party left...

TheBlaze: Darrell Castle was there the day the Constitution Party was founded in 1992 in New Orleans. It would be another four years before the Federal Elections Commission would officially recognize the party, but Castle, who is the one of the only — if not the only — original founders still alive, had a vision: restore constitutional government.

“A return to the rule of law is no small thing,” Castle, the Constitution Party’s 2016 presidential nominee, told TheBlaze in an interview. “The Constitution is what it says it is — the supreme law of the land.”

That law, as Castle and members of his party see it, delegates only 17 powers to the federal government, leaving the rest to the states.

“Our mission is to return the federal government to constitutional government, which means to restrict it to those 17 powers only,” he said. “If that was done, it would obviously be a completely different world.”

“In addition to that, the concept of the rule of law includes the idea that no one is above the law’s sanction, and no one is beneath the law’s protection,” Castle said. “There is a general feeling in the population now that the law is for little people like us, not for big people like Hillary Clinton and others.”

It can be discouraging to be a third party that doesn’t get much recognition or national media attention, but establishing the party was essential because those who started it “didn’t believe that the Republican Party or the Democratic Party would ever offer us an acceptable choice,” Castle explained.

“It’s discouraging that we get the same questions every election cycle — something like this: ‘Number one, if people vote for you, they’re really just electing Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, whoever the candidate happens to be in the Democratic Party.’ The other question would be: ‘Since you know you can’t win, why are you doing this?’ So the two major parties have been very clever at always giving us one who is ‘Mr. or Miss Evil’ and one is not quite so evil, but the results are always the same. So yes, it’s discouraging, but we keep going on,” he said.

But as Donald Trump has all but secured the GOP nomination, the Constitution Party — like many other third parties — has seen an uptick in interest among conservative voters, particularly those who were supporters of former Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, multiple high-ranking members of the party told TheBlaze.

“A couple of old friends from the Republican Party, who before didn’t know anything I’ve done, would not have given me the time of day, have contacted me and offered to help and that sort of thing,” Castle said.

Karen Murray, national spokeswoman for the party, told TheBlaze that the Constitution Party’s website has seen “thousands of visitors every day,” as well as “hundreds of new social media followers each week.”

Murray asserted that the Constitution Party differs from other parties in that “it has a specific mission as evidenced in its mission statement: ‘to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, constitutional functions.’”

“We are not about playing political games or gaining power to control the lives of other people,” Murray said. “Rather we seek to re-establish America’s Constitutional Republic, according to the actual intent of the founders, and to return the power to the people. We recognize that our rights come from our creator and states are sovereign.”

Nothing's gonna be pretty about November. Far too many Americans are lost in the forest. But for millions of constitutional conservatives, the price of straying further from our inherent rule of law is too severe a price to pay to place party over principle. We choose the Constitution...and there's at least one party that still does as well.

If you believe that this country should return to its Judeo-Christian roots, if you believe in the strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and if you understand that the politicians in Washington are unwilling to follow that Providentially-inspired document, so you want a leader that will always be faithful to it, then the Constitution Party might be the right fit for you, and Darrell Castle might be the choice to go with in November.

Constitution Party | Facebook | Twitter
Constitution Party of Texas | Facebook | Twitter
Castle2016 | Facebook | Twitter

LEVIN: Trump is the nominee, so why am I not excited?

Pretty much how MANY felt about it when the news came...

ConservativeReview: Donald Trump has officially accumulated the 1,237 delegates necessary to become the Republican nominee for president.

For weeks everyone has known this would be the outcome. But with that landmark finally reached by Trump, conservatives have a time of reflection.

Mark Levin opened his show today in that reflective spirit, asking listeners this question: If Donald Trump is now the nominee, "why am I not excited?" Levin admitted he is trying to be excited — even ecstatic — about the news, but he's not there. Levin concludes it's because "there is not a conservative horse" in the race.



Now Trump has suggested that he wants to make the Republican Party the "workers' party." "What?" asks Levin, "Why not the freedom party? The Constitution party? The American party?"

Trump vs Hillary. The media led us here & so many followed like sheep, continuing to drone on. To seal the deal, I guess the libertarians will go with Johnson again! Bleak, folks. None of these options are 'best' for the country.

Related link: Mark Levin: Sorry Guys, But Trump Is Simply 'Not A Conservative'

#NeitherTrumpNorHillary? Good thing there's Austin Petersen! (UPDATE: Or was...NEVERMIND!)

Since discussing the need to explore the third party field a few weeks back, and now with Trump & Hillary seizing the major party nominations, a conservatarian candidate named Austin Petersen has popped up on the radar of many disaffected conservatives & former Republicans. Conservatism inherently encapsulates some libertarian principles, and vice versa, so one can see how an agenda inclusive of spending cuts, a flat tax, auditing the Fed, reforming an 'Ellis Island' style of immigration, reforming entitlements, overturning Obamacare, and defending Life would provide a bridge between camps. Many are already taking note...

Friday 5/20/16, Glenn Beck:


Tuesday 5/24/16, Glenn Beck:


Tuesday 5/24/16, Mary Matalin:

Reason: Mary Matalin, longtime GOP consultant and famously part of America's Favorite Cross-Partisan Marriage with Democratic grumpus James Carville, officially left the Republican Party for the Libertarians and now is behind Petersen for the L.P.'s presidential nomination, which will be decided this weekend at the Party's National Convention in Orlando. As Washington Times reports:

"In these tumultuous times of domestic and global uncertainty, the country would be well served with Austin Petersen on the national ballot along with the two established party candidates. The times call for, and Americans deserve, a full-throated, clear, coherent call for the restoration of those principles our founders divined and their progeny refined. Austin Petersen is a courageous adherent of and best represents Jefferson’s inviolate first principle: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” noted Ms. Matalin on Tuesday.

Wednesday 5/25/16, Erick Erickson:

Reason: Erick Erickson, former chieftain at conservative site RedState and now [TheResurgent], who has long been loudly anti-Trump, says that Gary Johnson's pick of William Weld as his running mate shows he is "tone deaf" (Weld has been seen as insufficiently libertarian or even conservative by many) and disqualifies him from serious consideration. He today writes about Petersen:

Libertarians have the opportunity to have a huge impact on the Presidential race in 2016, but not with Gary Johnson. The alternative is Austin Petersen.

Petersen has his flaws. He has some views outside the mainstream, but then what Libertarian doesn’t? He would certainly be a candidate more likely to be build bridges to disgruntled voters than the perennial candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson, having flamed out in the Republican primary last go round then flamed out as the libertarian nominee. He just keeps running without learning any lessons.

Austin Petersen would be a fresh start and a lot of Republicans would potentially take a fresh look at Petersen. Couple him with a very strong, credible vice presidential candidate and the Libertarians might finally be the third party America needs for disruptive competition.

There have also been many others:

• Leon Wolf, managing editor of RedState said on CNN (after painting Trump as too crazy to vote for) that "Gary Johnson is a guy I would look at, he would not be my preference" but that Austin Petersen's "more my speed". Wolf did a video interview with Petersen at RedState.
• A diarist at the Red State site looked at the Stossel debate and found Petersen the best debater, especially compared to Johnson, and generally a knowledgeable fresh young face for the Party.
• The RandPaulTv site (a media aggregator site about things of interest to Rand Paul fans, not affiliated with him directly) thinks hard and decides Petersen is the L.P. guy best able to pick up Ted Cruz fans. Former Cruz man and right-wing blogger Todd Hagopian agrees.

• Michael van der Galien at Pajamas Media (another former Cruz man) says that the L.P. "Can Have a Great Year, But Only if Gary Johnson disappears." He identifies Petersen as "basically a conservatarian who sees eye to eye with Ted Cruz on a great many issues. He is passionately pro-life, believes bakers have the right to choose what cakes they bake, and is a fervent supporter of the Second Amendment. Oh, and he's also charismatic and a great speaker. If Libertarians are smart, they'll nominate someone like Petersen. If they do, 2016 could very well be their breakout year."
• The Liberty Conservative website analyzes Petersen's positions and declares him "leader of #nevertrump movement." Similar praise and/or endorsements from right-wing sites can be found on Constitution.com and DailyWhig.

Here's that Leon Wolf interview (worth checking out!):

Reason: Austin Petersen is a 35-year-old founder of the libertarian movement news and commentary site Libertarian Republic and a former staffer on Judge Andrew Napolitano's old Fox Business Network show Freedom Watch. Petersen is also one of the three people seeking the L.P.'s presidential nomination, which will be decided over Memorial Day weekend at the Party's national convention in Orlando

Compared to pompous Trump puff or shrill Hillary cackling, both of which spew incessant LIES, this young man is a much needed breath of fresh air. What say you, America? Do you have the courage to deviate from the Republicrat/Dempublican monopoly for the sake of a better way forward?

AustinForPresident.com

Related links: Still #NeverTrump? Austin Petersen Wants You to Get to Know Him Better
Young Republican Official Resigns Over Trump Nomination
The Conservatarian Manifesto: Should Libertarians and Conservatives Unite?
Great Conservative Minds and the 100-Year Plan

UPDATE: Well S#*T! The libertarians can't even get it right this year...

Gary Johnson Wins Libertarian Nomination for President

And this certainly didn't help...

Gary Johnson Shoots Himself in the Foot: Throws Out Austin Petersen’s Gun

Sigh...yet another missed opportunity.

Related link: Gary Johnson and William Weld are fake libertarians miseducating the public

The lawlessness of D.C. continues with both Repubs & Dems...

The lawlessness of Washington, D.C...whether from liberal Republicans assisting Obama's 'war on the suburbs'...

On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, The Republicans in the Senate under Sen Mitch McConnell have once again betrayed conservatives in their vote on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) amendments and their war on the suburbs. Instead of voting for the Sen Mike Lee amendment, many Republicans crossed over to vote with the Democrats in favor of the phony Sen Susan Collins Amendment which enabled the Democrats. The Collins Amendment is ineffective at stopping President Obama and his agenda. Mike Lee would have stopped the AFFH from taking effect. Senator Lee was trying to stop HUD from abusing a federal statute but his colleagues voted him down. This is absolutely shocking that Republicans would join in Obama’s war on the suburbs. This shows that having a Republican Congress, full of liberals, is worse than having a smaller conference full of conservatives. We are now expected to comply with HUD’s lawlessness while our leaders don’t have to comply with anything.

GOP Leaders Toss Loin Cloth to Democrats on Obama’s War on Suburbs

Related link: They’re Coming For Your Home

...or from statist Democrats unconstitutionally deceiving the courts on immigration...

Federal Court Throws “Rulebook” at Obama’s “Intentionally Deceptive” DOJ in Scorching Smackdown

It literally reads as if this court were taking the DOJ out behind the woodshed, and for good reason. To make it even better, it opens with this scene from the movie Bridge of Spies, correctly noting that it “exemplifies what this case is, and has been, about”:



The case concerns how the Obama Administration ignored the “rulebook” – the Constitution – in making its lawless Executive action on immigration, “chang[ing] the law” to grant legal status to four million illegal aliens. (This became known as the DHS directive.) The decision in that case is currently in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, but this order concerns the fact that the Obama Administration’s lawyers “knowingly” made “multiple misrepresentations” to the federal district court that the Administration’s scheme had not gone into effect. In fact, the Administration was “surreptitiously acting,” implementing the DHS directive in over 100,000 instances. ...

The court went far beyond cutting rhetoric and imposed six serious and concrete penalties:

1. Banning Some DOJ attorneys from appearing in that federal district court.
2. Ordering the Obama Administration to file a list of the 100,000 individuals granted legal status in direct violation of its order in each state.
3. Mandating that every DOJ attorney (not just those involved in this case) that practices in any of the 26 states involved in this litigation undergo mandatory ethics training.
4. Requiring the Attorney General to appoint someone to “ensure compliance” with the order and report yearly to the court for five years.
5. Commanding the Attorney General to “report to this court in sixty (60) days with a comprehensive plan to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.”
6. Directing the Attorney General to report to the court within 60 days on “what steps she is taking to ensure that the [DOJ] Office of Professional Responsibility effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.”

Related link: Judge orders lying DOJ lawyers to take ethics classes

"Don't expect any disciplinary action from the DOJ. The lawyers will probably be promoted." ~ Rick Moran

...or as we've become all too familiar with, activist courts handing down activist decisions, circumventing the constitutional rule of law reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Whatever the case, it all leads to a collective federal tyranny. A matter of how fast its wanted or desired by whichever side of the aisle becomes semantics on perception.

No regrets from Ted, his campaign or his supporters...

...not then, not now.

This is about furthering the broader fight for constitutional conservatism, plain and simple...

There's a stellar piece at RedState that's well worth the read in its entirety, giving a very real and credible glimpse at how we got to the miserable point we're at now. However, I'll let you go back and read all of that, and instead cut to the chase as relates to this inspiring video:

Ted Cruz ran the most professional, most data-driven, most well-funded primary campaign for president, EVER. He built a donor base of nearly 800,000 individual contributors, along with a dedicated grass-roots army of volunteers that would make Barack Obama envious. The infrastructure, the Rolodex, the data, the micro-targeting, was, and remains, world-class.

The Cruz campaign was more nimble than any in history– and moved from one strategy to another, as events on the ground changed and morphed throughout the season. For a 44-year old man who’d never run a national campaign before, it was masterful.

When you consider that no one –and I mean NO ONE— in the pantheon of the conservative movement lifted a finger when Ted Cruz needed it most, it is phenomenal that the Senator got as far as he did. Not one major columnist came out for him early on, Rush Limbaugh ignored him in those early days after Trump sucked up all the oxygen. The Koch brothers sat in the dugout. Matt Drudge loathed Cruz’ traditional Christianity, and mocked and belittled it and him throughout the course of the campaign.

There were sickening canards left unchallenged by those that should have been Cruz’ natural allies: That he was “not likeable” (a cursory bit of investigation proved this laughable), that he was a liar, that he was wasn’t constitutionally eligible, are all damnable lies that should have been easily kicked to the curb last November by a Paul Ryan, or a Brett Baier, or a Bob Tyrell. Instead? Crickets; and mostly because the “conservative movement” has become something of a damp squib.

I DO hold out hope that the delegates can break the emergency glass, and toss Donald J. Trump in the Cleveland GOP Dumpster. Barring this only development that can save the Republic, I see little hope for the next half-decade.

The fact is: Ted Cruz ran a stellar campaign, which in normal, Trump-less times, he would have won walking away. He pitched a no-hitter– but, the reliever came in at the top of the ninth, and gave up The Long Ball.

Once again, the Republicans have seen fit to nominate an extremely liberal north-eastern patrician, big-government authoritarian multi-millionaire with high name recognition. Once again, events and the media conspired against the true conservative. Once again, the packed field was over-stuffed, and the conservative vote was splintered for too long on the primary calendar.

But: If there is an election in 2020 — a long way from now, and President Hillary Clinton will have plenty of time to burn America to the ground, and scatter the ashes, and spread lime on the open wounds, — we must break from this damnable pattern. Let’s start with nominating Senator Cruz– preferably by acclimation…

I pray to GOD that we're granted another 1980 moment after four more years of either evil. I implore my fellow Americans to yearn for righteousness and strive for such leaders...

“I don’t know what the future will hold. We may face some challenging days ahead. We may face growing challenges going ahead, but I am convinced that movement, the men and women gathered here, will be the remnant, will be the core of pulling this country back from the abyss.” – Ted Cruz, Texas GOP Convention

Related links: Cruz Hints He’ll Be Back Running For President Again
Ted Cruz’s to-do list: Learn from defeat, win Senate re-election, prep for 2020 run
Ted Cruz: No Regrets
Ted Cruz SPEAKS at the Texas GOP convention! [FULL SPEECH!!]

ADDENDUM: FYI, this may have been the most attention the media gave Ted Cruz the entire campaign cycle!

Senate Republicans want to draft your DAUGHTERS!

Speaking of androgyny, the coercion behind it, as well as the perverse acceptance of it, we move from schools to military. Already our most powerful military on the planet is being reduced to the leftist government's social-experiment playground with the lifting of DADT, the enlistment of illegals, the abolition of Christian-centric ministries, etc., etc. Now, there's yet another agenda item to tick off.

Remember when they said a draft would be highly unlikely in our all-volunteer armed forces? I mean, we're at peace now with our current rulers, and everyone loves us again, right? Well not only are they suddenly talking draft now, but for a literal handful of common sense Senators, they're demanding that our DAUGHTERS must be a part of it if/when they're called to go fight at the Washington Cartel's whim...

TheResurgent: It is becoming harder and harder to tell the two major political parties apart. Today in Washington, all but three Senate Republicans on the Armed Services Committee voted to require your daughters to sign up for selective service and be drafted in times of war.

Only Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Mike Rounds opposed the measure, which was offered up by the Democrats.

It is true that there are countries that require women to join the military, but the United States has never been a country to demand our daughters be drafted to war. Even in an age where the left demands complete equality, we have tended to recognize that men and women are actually different physically and we have left the wars to men.

But Senate Republicans are preparing to change that. The party that supposedly champions families and children is siding with leftists who want to eradicate the family structure and blur the lines of men and women completely. Shame on them.

And why all the draft talk now in the first place? Simply because thus far 21st century administrations won't allow our most powerful military on the planet to UNLEASH HELL on Islamo-Nazis decapitating at will? Can't win any battle, much less a war, with hands tied behind backs.

Furthermore, considering these Washington cowards latest proposal to force women to fight their wars, if you thought draft-dodging was a thing of the past, wait until Hillary or Trump (or Obama on the way out) get us into another quagmire. When it comes down to real men protecting their wives and daughters from anything these morons would get us into, we'll fight alright...but I don't think it will be the one they want. 

Obama administration demands schools no longer recognize gender in their restrooms

Choice. What happens to choice when common sense doesn't accompany it? We've lived through decades worth of its detriments, so this latest will be no exception in the Left's quest to create an androgynous dystopian society. Where's the choice in top-down coercion?

TheResurgent: The Obama Administration is ordering all public schools in the United States to allow boys to go to the girls’ bathroom and girls to go to the boys’ bathroom. While the percentage of Americans suffering the mental health disease of transgenderism is less than one percent of the nation, the Obama Administration has decided we are no longer allowed to note that it is a mental health issue.

Not only that, but the administration is doing this contradictory to the language of the transgender movement. That movement believes that gender and sex are two different things. It is the only way they can justify the pseudo-science they think proves they aren’t crazy. But the Civil Rights Act the Obama Administration is using to justify its expansive new order references “sex”, not gender.

Normal people realize that sex and gender are the same thing and gender is just a synonym for sex. But the entirety of transgenderism as something real demands that sex and gender be two different things. In their language, sex is what you are born as and gender is what you decide you are.

This is a fringe movement of nutters who the Obama Administration has decided have valid legal claims to pee where they wish. There is no uniform definition for the mental illness, so if you decide tomorrow to be of the opposite sex, you’d qualify.

We know that boys will be boys and we can see this to its logical and final conclusion. It will end badly. But the left will not care.

Up is down, down is up, the sky is green, the grass is blue, right is wrong, and wrong is right. Oh, and before you demand that I vote for Donald Trump to stop this madness, he is already on record saying he’s fine with men using the women’s bathroom.

That last sentence covers my expected P.S. (Thanks, Erick!) But because this came from fiat on high, now all public schools will feel the pressures of federal funding retained or pulled or even face lawsuits, much the same as the threats hanging over North Carolina and Mississippi's heads. Yet another reason to sever the Department of Education from the federal level and send back home to the states and localities that benefit each community individually (i.e., personal liberty and sovereignty).

But in the end, what this is about is the one-man wrecking ball (as Levin nicknamed Obama long ago) seizing another opportunity to divide Americans, and so he pounces on it with the furtherance of absurdity. Anything to flush away more of the norm of our once thriving, assimilated American culture and the principles of genuine rights with it.

Federal judge strikes down Obamacare insurer bailouts

In mentioning Obama's Iranian lie that he's ending the final year of his presidency with and the way in which that deception was foist upon the people, the comparison to Obamacare's pitch in the first half of his tenure was unmistakable. And since that topic was brought up, it now appears that the disastrous government healthcare takeover has run into another flaw (I know, shocker). Besides all the unlawful rewrites and interpretations, including that of the Court's, there's the latest issue of unconstitutional funding, ironically called out by a federal judge...

RedState: Obamacare is unpopular for a whole host of reasons, most of which have to do with the individual mandate and the crush of regulations it places on businesses. One thing most people don’t really understand about Obamacare as it was passed, but which is probably the most fatal flaw in the law, is that it created a financially unsound system and prohibited insurers from reacting to the market adjustments by law.

The Obama administration has been busy trying to prevent the whole system from collapsing (and taking the private insurance market with it) by taking a series of blatantly unlawful unilateral actions to essentially rewrite the entire law – from erasing or rewriting deadlines, to offering unlawful credits to consumers who were on national exchanges (a program that was only saved by the political cowardice of John Roberts), and so forth.

The administration’s latest ploy has been to essentially bail out private insurers whose balance sheets have been decimated by participation in Obamacare with taxpayer dollars, in spite of the fact that the law contains no such provision. The administration’s “defense” to their action essentially was that the law said we can give tax credits to consumers so surely that means we can give them to insurers too, right? The first Federal judge to rule on the question disagrees:

A federal judge on Thursday ruled for House Republicans in their lawsuit against the Obama administration over ObamaCare.

In a major ruling, Judge Rosemary Collyer, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the administration does not have the power to spend money on “cost sharing reduction” payments to insurers without an appropriation from Congress.

Given that the Supreme Court has already twice saved the law from a catastrophe of its own making, it’s hard to imagine that they won’t a third time, especially now that Justice Scalia has passed away. Granted, the stakes are at least theoretically lower in this case since there’s not even really an argument that the insurer bailouts are an essential part of the law, not even if you squint hard, but SCOTUS long ago decided to act as a rubber stamp for the administration’s unilateral actions in implementing Obamacare, and it’s hard to see this case being decided any differently.

'Cause more bailouts is what we need while advancing historic national debt. Peculiar how such a grand idea can't stand on its own. The insurers should have known better, but then, the titans among them colluded with the government to allow this takeover to occur in the first place.

Even more peculiar is that Congress can't own its own power and has to run to the courts with lawsuits! But that's how out of wack separation of powers are in this new progressive era.

It's also interesting to observe with this case how at every turn, liberty tries to shine through, even if it is one hand-slap at a time. I guess we'll see if some glimmer of it can cut through every fresh layer of tape this debacle allows for. However, the way capitalism and competition are talked in hushed tones these days, as well as the state of a Congress and Court subdued by an ever increasing Executive power, who to say.

Related links: Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally
Federal Judge rules AGAINST Obama admin on Obamacare

P.S. Just to remind viewers, this whole socialized medicine nightmare was gonna be another of Cruz's Day 1 takedowns, as opposed to Trump's incoherence on the topic...just sayin'.

Iran deal: Obama ends presidency with another Big Lie

Obama began the first few years of his administration with the lie of Obamacare. Apparently, he's going to end it with another BIG LIE...

On Tuesday’s Mark Levin show, The Iran Nuclear deal is the most devastating treaty in modern times. The survivability of the West is at stake with this deal, but the Obama administration doesn’t care. They continue to deceive the American people and their lying is amounting to a scandal worse than Watergate. Sen. Bob Corker was one of the Republicans who surrendered Congress’s treaty making power in the execution of the Iran Deal.

This is treason. Plain and simple...orchestrated from the top, no less.

Mediaite: Remember that time the White House deceived those gullible Americans about the Iran deal? Haha, good times!

That was the undeniable tone of a recent New York Times profile of President Barack Obama‘s national security advisor Ben Rhodes.

Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal.

Rewind to last Friday and Levin reviewed how Obama was always a sellout on this deal...

Related links: Obama's Foreign Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran Deal
Ben Rhodes, Liar
White House Blames Allegations of Iran Deal Deceit in Ben Rhodes Profile on ‘Sour Grapes’
Iran disputes report of missile test

And follow the media breadcrumbs...or lack thereof:

Where's CBS News on this? Hmmm...
Ben Rhodes’s brother, the day after Benghazi: The government thinks this could be a coordinated attack, not a video protest
How about ABC? Well...
Presidents of ABC and CBS News Have Siblings Working at White House With Ties to Benghazi
So if they were tight-lipped about Benghazi until the beans were spilled, chances are that they're gonna be about this latest betrayal.

They lied about Obamacare and got away with it...
Thanks to Jonathan Gruber for revealing Obamacare deception
Confirmed: White House Lied About Jonathan Gruber’s Role in Developing ObamaCare
...so they'll lie about this. No accountability.

But there's no liberal bias in the press. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Related link: John Kerry Is Iran’s Lobbyist-in-Chief

P.S. In regards to this pathetic deal which turns out to be another Obama administration lie, Trump seems to have flopped around on this one as well. I believe his most current position is to renegotiate the deal, unlike Cruz who was simply gonna RIP IT UP on Day 1. Just sayin'.

Exploring the third party field

So, what can we do to make the Office of the President great again? Well, what conservatives cannot do is give up their principles. We continue to fight on. How? There's a couple of ways. They're not easy, they're long-shots, but they're necessary when both parties and each of their bandwagon of loyalists have failed us.

The first is the obvious: a third party candidacy. Agreement upon which is the tricky part.

There's probably the widest known of them, the Libertarian Party, who's national convention to determine it's candidate falls on May 26-30, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. And in a season where we witnessed 16 Republicans vying for their top spot, this party has more candidates vying for that nomination (18 total)! Libertarians have a litany of issues that may appeal to secularists, but unfortunately miss the mark with many conservative values. So, are there any options to consider there? Austin Petersen is likely the most attractive candidate for conservatives (spending cuts, flat tax, audit the Fed, 'Ellis Island' immigration, reform entitlements, overturn Obamacare, defend Life, and more!). Here's some dates/events/personalities that may help you decide...

• April 1st - the first nationally televised Libertarian Party presidential forum on Fox Business’s Stossel.




• May 12th (that's TOMORROW, folks!) - RT America to host presidential debate for Libertarian Party candidates.


• Next Monday, May 16th - the final Libertarian Party presidential primary debate in Las Vegas.



TheLibertarianRepublic: Next Monday, May 16th, Penn Jillette will moderate the final Libertarian Party presidential primary debate in Las Vegas. Former Governor Gary Johnson, cybersecurity guru John McAfee, and TLR founder Austin Petersen will debate on a variety of topics ranging from the war on drugs to censorship. There are tickets available to attend the event.

All proceeds will go to benefit Opportunity Village, a non-profit dedicated to serving children and adults in the southern Nevada with intellectual disabilities.

The debate will take place at Opportunity Village- Engelstad Campus, from 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm (PT). The event will be filmed for later broadcast, though Austin Petersen may stream it live like he has done with many prior debates.

There is a rumor that theBlaze will be collaborating with the Libertarian Party of Nevada to broadcast on their network, but nothing is official yet.

With the Fox Business presidential debate, Russia Today’s live debate, and now this one moderated by a libertarian icon, Libertarians are getting more exposure than ever. Will this exposure translate into votes? November is seven months away; we will have to wait and see.

There's also the Constitution Party, which is probably much more attractive to disaffected conservatives (particularly those of faith), but doesn't have near as much steam behind it (or honestly charisma) as the libertarians, as it wrestles to gain ballot access throughout all the states. Nonetheless, The Constitution Party has already selected its presidential and vice-presidential nominees! Visit the campaign website here and check out the nominees' acceptance speeches...

And yet a third option is for #NeverTrump to ramp things up and run a conservative third party candidate!

TheResurgent: As conservatives come to the end of sitting shiva over Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party, many in the #NeverTrump movement are wondering: what next? After all, honorary American citizen Winston Churchill had a little something to say about surrender. A third-party conservative candidate can accomplish something positive this election cycle even if winning the White House remains the remotest of wild dreams.

1. A conservative third party will lay out the principles of the conservative movement of the future – a new Sharon Statement of non-negotiables.


2. It will deny Trump the White House.


3. It will give conservatives a reason to turn out and vote down ticket, when many might otherwise stay home and create a disastrous year for state and Congressional races.


4. It will get a conservative on stage to communicate the conservative message to the country.


5. It will make it more difficult for Trump to ignore conservatives as a voting bloc.

This year, Tea Party conservatives have learned the hard lesson that we are not just the minority of the electorate, we’re a minority even within the Republican Party. But a determined minority can do a great deal to sway the path the country; self-described liberals have never broken 25 percent in polls, yet they’ve undeniably deeply influenced the history and culture of the United States. An organized conservative third party bid has real, tangible benefits, and declares us as what we ought to strive to be – a vocal, organized remnant standing athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’”

Short of talking Cruz into a third party run, which he's pretty much ruled out (however garnered the endorsement of the Conservative Party USA, just sayin'!), here's your third party options (thus far).

Are there any other options? Certainly...next blog...

Related links: The Unorthodox Roadmap for a Conservative Presidential Win
Anti-Donald Trump Forces Gear Up For Third-Party Challenge

ADDENDUM: Liz Mair presents 4 ways to oppose Trump besides voting for Hillary that are reflective of the above post and the next...

TheFederalist: American voters have had about a week now to start trying to get comfortable with living in a world where, barring extraordinary and historic action, they will be faced with a Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump general election contest.

To many of us, this feels like a choice between being shot or being shot. But if key leaders in the #NeverTrump movement have it their way, there just might be a way for those voters to get out alive—just maybe.

Here are the options various Never Trump leaders are actively pursuing right now to try to deliver an alternative choice for Americans as they head to the polls this fall.

1. Support the Libertarian Party Candidate


2. Keep Working the Delegates


3. Place New Names on the Ballots in All 50 States


4. Form a New Political Party

A lot of factors will dictate which, if any, of these options takes precedence in the next few days and weeks. But for the time being, all remain actively on the table, with a late April Suffolk University poll showing that only 60 percent of Republican primary voters were committed to supporting Trump if he is the nominee, and rumblings from Bernie Sanders voters about refusing to support Clinton.

The fact that high-profile Republicans like Sasse, Romney, Jeb Bush, and—for the time being, anyway—Paul Ryan are refusing to commit to vote for Trump or Clinton also gives these options legs, at least for the foreseeable future. Then there is the fact that 2016 is manifestly already a very weird, out-of-the-ordinary political cycle—something that is as heartening now as it was disconcerting three weeks ago to people opposing both Trump and Clinton.

Stay tuned: The bottom line is that Never Trump could still play a very significant role in 2016.

For more details on these four options, go to the source here.

Related link: A Viable Path to Victory

How should a Christian vote if they don’t agree with either candidate?

Righteous advice from Pastor Todd Wagner...

"When I go in, even though we are in a two-party system, I am not obligated to vote for one of those two candidates, and I'm not throwing my vote away when I vote for righteousness. ...

The two-party system is not ingrained in our Constitution, and given two alternatives is not ingrained in wisdom, when both of the alternatives are less than God's best. And what needs to happen is there needs to be an increased articulation as to why we might need a third way."

Now there's courage through faith in practice!

Referencing Jeremiah 29:7, Wagner says, "We shouldn't get less engaged in our public world; we should get engaged as believers, because we ought to seek the welfare of the city which we are in. So, it's not our sworn enemy, politics isn't, it is the servant of God."

Wagner also points out how "God's at work." (Daniel 2:21) "Part of the way God's at work sometimes is he lets people get what they want." (Psalm 106:15)...

"If we want murderers, liars, immoral, inconsistent, self-concerned, power-hungry people to be our leaders, we're gonna get that, and it's gonna cost us. And so I don't think that we need to be people who think we're throwing away a vote when we vote for righteousness. We need to make a case, if nothing else, that, 'Hey, there's some people out there doing that!'"

Also, Wagner says not to fall for the 'spiral of silence':

"Where everybody kind of agrees that what is held as the prevailing public opinion by the cultural elite and people in power is wrong, but because they're either intimidated by what will happen to them if they speak up, or because they think it's not gonna make a difference, or that no one else must believe it because no one else is speaking up; therefore we just continue to have what everybody knows is wrong be the standard that is out there. That's why you've gotta speak up! And don't think you're throwing away your life or throwing away your vote when you do. We have a responsibility to stand for RIGHT-ness...to be good citizens, to make sure we govern well. And we don't endorse evil." (Romans 1:32)

Lastly, not voting is NOT an option:

"You still vote. You CANNOT not vote. You're not wasting your vote when you say, 'I think there's a better candidate out there,' even if you have to write'em in. We recently had a senator elected in Alaska who was a write-in candidate. It can happen. But even if it can't happen, in terms of what we think logistically, it's still the right thing to do. Now, you've gotta determine if either one of the candidates that are up there are tolerable for you, if their candidacy is not below this certain limit of evil that you can't defend. You might go, 'I feel comfortable voting for that candidate.' That's what you've gotta do with a clean conscience before God. But I don't think we ever have the ability to just say 'I'm not gonna vote.' We have to not become less involved in the system, but as good citizens, more involved."

A LOT of sound, reasonable and spiritually uplifting advice. So before you go-along-to-get-along, or are peer-pressured into voting a certain way, or are one of those on the other end of the stick doing the badgering, perhaps it'd be wise to recall the season that just passed. Lent. Easter. And just yesterday, Ascension.

I can't even imagine the temptation Christ resisted to simply walk away, to escape death at the hands of mere mortal, corrupted men, instead accepting a fate that would overcome death itself to save ALL of humanity. If Christ can do that for me, for you, for ALL OF US, then choosing righteousness over evil in an election cycle shouldn't be a difficult task at all, right?

Related links: Ascension Day Couldn’t Be More Timely
Dear Christians, If You Vote For A Godless Man, You Are Asking For Tyranny
Regarding Ted Cruz, you ain't seen nothing yet

ADDENDUM: In addition, here's a great article similarly expressing how every decision we make should be evaluated in the light of good vs evil...

Should Christians Make Decisions Based On The Lesser Of Two Evils?