Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Are liberal city centers dying off politically?

It’s a given in American politics that urban centers are essentially Democrat strongholds. There is no point in Republicans or conservatives competing there because you’re simply not going to gain any votes or find any agreement on key policy points. This can be attributed to both economic and demographic factors. The low income urban communities are predominantly composed of minority voters and they stand with the Democrats in numbers which are too daunting to contemplate. The majority of the wealthy tend toward the limosene liberal crowd who can afford destructive taxes and have the leisure time available to dictate proper life choices to others no matter how they live their own lives. (Be sure to take a limo or a private jet to your next climate change conference.)
But is this changing? Joel Kotkin at Real Clear Politics looks at the numbers and finds that while urban population centers are still large, they are not growing in relation to the exurbs and rural areas, and they’re also not turning out to vote in the same numbers as they did in the heyday of the Democrats.
This urban economy has created many of the most unequal places  in the country. At the top are the rich and super-affluent who have rediscovered the blessings of urbanity, followed by a large cadre of young and middle-aged professionals, many of them childless. Often ignored, except after sensationalized police shootings, is a vast impoverished class that has become ever-more concentrated in particular neighborhoods. During the first decade of the current millennium, neighborhoods with entrenchedurban poverty actually grew, increasing in numbers from 1,100 to 3,100. In population, they grew from 2 million to 4 million.Some 80 percent of all population growth in American cities, since 2000, notes demographerWendell Cox, came from these poorer people, many of them recent immigrants.
Such social imbalances are not, as is the favored term among the trendy, sustainable. We appear to be creating the conditions for a new wave of violent crime on a scale not seen since the early 1990s. Along with poverty,public disorderlinessgang activityhomelessness and homicides are on the rise in many American core cities, including Baltimore,  Milwaukee, Los Angeles and New York. Racial tensions, particularly with the police, have worsened. So even as left-leaning politicians try to rein in police, recent IRS data in Chicago reveals, the middle class appears to once again be leaving for suburban and other locales.
When Democrats begin looking at these types of numbers in a serious fashion they must be asking a question which conservatives have been pondering for some time. Who has been running things in the cities for decades now? The Democrats. And how’s that working out for you? Crime rates in the cities have been – and remain – epic. You can try to blame vast social conflict on the police if you like, but the fact is that the police go where the crime is. The social infrastructure in so many large cities has simply collapsed and it’s all taken place on the watch of the liberal Democrats who rule the roost. They whip up their voters into a frenzy every election cycle, warning of the dangers of the Republicans who hold no power over their lives, but it is under their leadership that you saw the current mess develop.
On the upper end of the scale, particularly in places like New York City, there is a jarring contrast which is hard for the Democrat base to ignore. How do you talk about income inequality and the evils of the fat cats when it’s those same fat cats financing the election of the same Democrats over and over again? Isn’t there a bit of a disconnect there?
Looking at the numbers in that article I have have to wonder if Barack Obama – by virtue of being able to generate racial empathy – might be the last Democrat who will turn out large numbers of voters in the cities. What does Hillary have to offer them which is any different than the policies which have seen New York’s murder rate skyrocket once again and Baltimore going up in flames?

Sunday, August 9, 2015

How New York Ended Up With 1.2 Million Open Arrest Warrants

Mandatory Common Core tests in New York just happen to be full of corporate brand names

Across the state of New York, this year’s Common Core English tests have reportedly featured a slew of brand-name products including iPod, Barbie, Mug Root Beer and Life Savers. For Nike, the tests even conveniently included the shoe company’s ubiquitous slogan: “Just Do It.”
The brands – and apparently even some of their familiar trademark symbols – appeared in tests questions for students ranging from third to eighth grades, reports The Post-Standard of Syracuse.
Over one million students were required to take the tests.
Parents, teachers and school administrators have speculated that the kid-friendly brand names are a new form of product placement.
Education materials behemoth Pearson, which has a $32 million five-year contract to develop New York’s Common Core-related tests, has barred teachers and school officials from disclosing the contents of the tests.
Students and parents are not so barred, though, and many have complained.
“‘Why are they trying to sell me something during the test?'” Long Island mother Deborah Poppe quoted her son as saying, according to Fox News. “He’s bright enough to realize that it was almost like a commercial.”
Poppe said her eighth-grade son was talking about a question about a busboy who didn’t clean up a root beer spill. It wasn’t just any root beer, though. No sir! It was Mug Root Beer, a registered trademark of PepsiCo (current market cap: $129.7 billion).
Another question about the value of taking risks featured the now-hackneyed Nike slogan “Just Do It.”

Judge: NY Teacher Exam Not Discriminatory Just Because Minorities Score Lower

A federal judge in New York has deigned to allow a teacher licensing exam which tests rudimentary academic skills and knowledge.
Judge Kimba M. Wood issued her ruling Friday, reports The New York Times.
In June, Wood had struck down another test of basic knowledge used by New York City to vet potential teachers. Wood concluded that the test illegally discriminated against racial minorities because members of racial minorities scored lower on it.
Members of racial minorities also score lower on the test Wood has allowed but, she reasoned, the low scores on the new test of basic knowledge are totally different than the low scores on the old test of basic knowledge.
Wood, a judge in the Southern District of New York, ruled that the two tests are different because the new one more accurately evaluates the skills needs for teaching successfully.
The teaching licensure exam Wood has allowed is called the Academic Literacy Skills Test (ALST). It focuses on reading and writing skills and is aligned with the national Common Core standards for English.
Education materials behemoth Pearson, which has a $32 million five-year contract to develop New York’s Common Core-related tests, developed the literacy skills test. (RELATED: Mandatory Common Core Tests In New York Just Happen To Be Full Of Corporate Brand Names)
Prospective teachers seeking certification in the state of New York must take the literacy test as well as three others.
The Academic Literacy Skills Test first appeared in the 2013-14 school year.
In education departments are universities, would-be black and Hispanic teachers have failed New York’s Academic Literacy Skills Test at a considerable clip. Just 41 percent of black teacher candidates passed the test on the first attempt. Just 46 percent of Hispanic teacher candidates passed on their first try.
The first-time pass rate for white teacher candidates on the test has been 64 percent.
Over 80 percent of America’s current teacher workforce is white.
In a court filing, former New York State deputy commissioner of education Ken Wagner asserted that the literacy test and the other three teacher licensing tests “ensure that each newly certified teacher entered the classroom with certain minimum knowledge, skills and abilities.”
New York State Education Department spokesman David Tompkins lauded Wood’s ruling.
“Our students need and deserve the best qualified teachers possible, and the ALST helps make sure they get those teachers,” Tompkins said, according to the Times.
Critics of testing academic skills as a way to license teachers argue that tests of basic literacy can only measure how well someone can speak and write.
“The question is, is that one of the criterion for determining who will be a good teacher?” Alfred S. Posamentier, former education dean at Mercy College in the swanky suburbs north of Manhattan, told the Times. “My sense is that the answer is no.”
Due to complaints from professors and officials in university education departments, soon-to-be teachers don’t actually need to pass the literacy exam until June 30, 2016. If they fail the literacy test, they can display their English language prowess through coursework.
At issue in Wood’s Friday ruling and her previous ruling is the concept of disparate racial impact. The basic rule when disparate racial impact occurs as the result of an employment test is that proponents of the test must show that the test assesses skills specifically necessary for the job.

Friday, August 7, 2015


Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is expected to announce tomorrow that he opposes the nuclear accord President Obama negotiated with the Ayatollah’s regime in Iran. Schumer, as the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, wields heavy influence over his caucus, whose representatives have been split over the deal thus far.

The New York Democratic Senator was often brought up in a recent New York City rally where over 12,000 people came to protest the Iran deal.
Schumer said in a statement regarding the Iran deal:
Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.
“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way. While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion,” he added.
The New York Times reports that Schumer retreated to his Brooklyn apartment on the Sunday that the deal was announced and had continuously studied the accord until making his decision this week. He ultimately determined that the deal was not one he could support.
Opponents of the Iran deal have said that the agreement allows for Iran to secure $150 billion dollars in unfrozen assets, which it could use to empower the terrorist regimes it supports as the world’s leading state-sponsor of jihadist terror groups. The deal also gives Iran at least 24-days notice before international inspectors are allowed to investigate whether the regime is cheating the deal, and if the Mullahs have decided to make a push towards developing nuclear weapons.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Obama Plots to Thwart Justice for US Victims of Palestinian Terrorism

On February 23, 2015, a federal jury in New York sided with 10 American families, finding the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) liable for six terrorist attacks occurring in Israel over a decade ago. The families were awarded $218.5 million for a series of terrorist acts attributed to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas, perpetrated between 2002 and 2004 during the Second Intifada. On Monday, the Obama administration indicated it might intervene in the case‚ possibly on behalf of the Palestinian terrorists.

That’s because the stakes are huge for these two cash-strapped entities. The Antiterrorism Act of 1992 authorizes “any U.S. national injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism to bring a civil action in U.S. district court and recover treble damages and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees,” the act states. Thus, the award of $218.5 million could triple to $655.5 million. When interest is included, calculated to be $165 million, which would also be tripled, the total potential liability runs to $1.15 billion. That sum is equal to nearly a third of the Palestinian Authority’s annual budget of operations.

Both groups intend to appeal the verdict, insisting they are not responsible “for the actions of individuals” involved in the carnage. “The Palestinian Liberation Organization [sic] and the Palestinian National Authority are deeply disappointed by the adverse decision issued today in a New York court,” said Mahmoud Khalifa, PA deputy minister of information, after the verdict was announced. “The charges that were made against us are baseless ... we will appeal this decision.”

In the meantime, Kent Yalowitz, the families’ attorney, requested that the two organizations place $30 million per month in escrow while the process proceeds. U.S. District Judge George Daniels indicated he was inclined to require Palestinians to post some sort of bond, as a means of showing “some meaningful demonstration that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”

Saturday, August 1, 2015

[VIDEO] It's back: FEC says regulating Internet, Google, Facebook under its 'purview'

After backing down amid concerns she wanted to regulate political speech, and even new sites like the Drudge Report, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission has renewed talk about targeting campaign and political activities on the internet.
Ann M. Ravel, discussing election regulation during a speech in New York, suggested it was time to produce "thoughtful policy" targeting internet political activity. She also expressed frustration that her last bid was met with "threatening misogynist responses to me."
She was speaking at a day-long conference hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Committee for Economic Development when she was asked about regulating the internet, Google and Facebook.
Ravel said that it would be under the "purview" of the FEC to oversee internet political activities such as fundraising and donations.
Her speech was just posted on YouTube.
Under current rules, the FEC regulates paid campaign ads on the internet just like they do on TV. However, videos or other social media posted for free are not regulated.
When the Democrats on the FEC first raised the possibility of regulations, opponents feared they were going to target conservative groups, activities and news sites. A proposal to delve into the issue died in a 3-3 vote.
Republican Commissioner Lee E. Goodman, the previous chairman,warned that regulations would silence voices on the internet and that sites with a political bent, even in the media, could face rules requiring them to disclose donors and finances.
But in answering the question this week, Ravel indicated she wants to pursue regulations. "It would be under the purview of the FEC to look at some of the issues that arise in new media and the impact of new media, in particular with respect to disclosure and ensuring that there is no corporate contributions, for example excessive contributions or contributions to a particular candidates for example," she said.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

NY judge to NFL, Brady lawyers: Tone it down, figure it out

Photo by: 

John Wilcox
Tom Brady acknowledges the crowd as he runs onto the field for the beginning of Patriots training camp at Gillette, Thursday, July 30, 2015. Staff photo by John Wilcox.
A New York federal judge has told lawyers for Tom Brady and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to “tone down the rhetoric” and "pursue a mutually acceptable resolution” in the ongoing Deflategate controversy that has already been in two courthouses in two time zones.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman laid down the admonishment just hours after a Minnesota judge ordered the NFL Players Association’s case to be moved to New York — the jurisdiction where the NFL first filed its case to have Goodell’s decision to suspend Brady for four games upheld.
“While this litigation is ongoing, it is appropriate (and helpful) for all counsel and all parties in this case to tone down their rhetoric,” Berman wrote. He added later, “If they have not already done so, the parties and counsel are directed forthwith actively to begin to pursue a mutually acceptable resolution of this case.”
The NFLPA filed its suit in Minnesota yesterday in hopes to reverse Goodell decision in a court that has been player friendly. A day earlier, the NFL had beaten the union to the punch, filing in New York shortly after the decision came down, hoping to take advantage of the "first-to-file" rule.
This morning, Richard Kyle, a federal court judge in Minnesota, wrote that "the court sees little reason for this action to have been commenced in Minnesota at all. Brady plays for a team in Massachusetts; the Union is headquartered in Washington D.C.; the NFL is headquartered in New York; the arbitration proceedings took place in New York; and the award was issued in New York.
"In the undersigned's view, therefore, it makes eminent sense the NFL would have commenced its action seeking confirmation of the award in the Southern District of New York. Why the instant action was filed here, however, is far less clear."
The union was hoping the case would land in front of U.S. District Court Judge David Doty, who recently vacated the indefinite suspension of Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson.
Today's ruling does not assure success for the NFL, but it is definitely an initial victory in a process that could consume at least the rest of the summer. Berman — the New York judge — made it very clear that he “is fully prepared to devote the time and attention necessary to help the parties resolve this case via litigation and/or by mutual consent.”

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Seattle sees fallout from $15 minimum wage, as other cities follow suit

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is supposed to lift workers out of poverty and move them off public assistance. But there may be a hitch in the plan.
Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.
Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.
“If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM.
The twist is just one apparent side effect of the controversial -- yet trendsetting -- minimum wage law in Seattle, which is being copied in several other cities despite concerns over prices rising and businesses struggling to keep up.
The notion that employees are intentionally working less to preserve their welfare has been a hot topic on talk radio. While the claims are difficult to track, state stats indeed suggest few are moving off welfare programs under the new wage.
Despite a booming economy throughout western Washington, the state’s welfare caseload has dropped very little since the higher wage phase began in Seattle in April. In March 130,851 people were enrolled in the Basic Food program. In April, the caseload dropped to 130,376.
At the same time, prices appear to be going up on just about everything.
Some restaurants have tacked on a 15 percent surcharge to cover the higher wages. And some managers are no longer encouraging customers to tip, leading to a redistribution of income. Workers in the back of the kitchen, such as dishwashers and cooks, are getting paid more, but servers who rely on tips are seeing a pay cut.
Some long-time Seattle restaurants have closed altogether, though none of the owners publicly blamed the minimum wage law.
“It’s what happens when the government imposes a restriction on the labor market that normally wouldn’t be there, and marginal businesses get hit the hardest, and usually those are small, neighborhood businesses,” said Paul Guppy, of the Washington Policy Center.
Seattle was followed by San Francisco and Los Angeles in passing a $15 minimum wage law. The wage is being phased in over several years to give businesses time to adjust. The current minimum wage in Seattle is $11. In San Francisco, it’s $12.25.
And it is spreading. Beyond the city of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors this week also approved a $15 minimum wage.
New York state could be next, with the state Wage Board on Wednesday backing a $15 wage for fast-food workers, something Gov. Andrew Cuomo has supported. 
Already, though, there are unintended consequences in other cities. 
Comix Experience, a small book store in downtown San Francisco, has begun selling graphic novel club subscriptions in order to meet payroll. The owner, Brian Hibbs, admits members are not getting all that much for their $25 per month dues, but their “donation” is keeping him in business.
“I was looking at potentially having to close the store down and then how would I make my living?” Hibbs asked.
To date, he’s sold 228 subscriptions. He says he needs 334 to reach his goal of the $80,000 income required to cover higher labor costs. He doesn’t blame San Francisco voters for approving the $15 minimum wage, but he doesn’t think they had all the information needed to make a good decision.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

In Iowa, Scott Walker Refuses to Condemn Trump: ‘He Can Speak for Himself’

While most GOP presidential candidates rush to take potshots at surprise frontrunner Donald Trump, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker appears to be handling the real-estate-mogul-turned-presidential-candidate with an abundance of caution. “Donald Trump can speak for himself,” 

Walker said in Iowa today when asked to explain Trump’s meteoric rise. “I’m going to answer questions about my positions, not Donald Trump’s or Jeb Bush’s or Marco Rubio’s or anyone else’s out there.”

Ted Cruz has been the only high-profile GOP presidential contender to openly embrace Trump’s controversial entry into the race so far. Other Republican candidates have come out swinging against the celebrity businessman’s firebrand rhetoric. Former Texas governor Rick Perry called it “a toxic mix of demagoguery and nonsense.” South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said Trump was a “wrecking ball” for the Republican Party. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush said Trump’s controversial comments on immigration were “not accurate,” and Florida senator Marco Rubio called them “offensive” and “divisive.

” But even after Trump relegated Walker to second-place in a new national Fox News poll on Thursday, the Wisconsin governor still wouldn’t budge. When asked why he wouldn’t join other candidates in condemning Trump, Walker still wouldn’t comment. “You’re going to ask me again, I’ll give you the same answer 50 more times,” he said, when asked why he wouldn’t join other candidates in condemning Trump. “So if you want to waste your time on that question, go ahead.”

Wednesday, July 8, 2015


A new study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center confirms what many of us already knew:

Liberal “blue states” are fiscally irresponsible.

In fact, 11 of the 14 least fiscally solvent states are also on the list of the “dirty dozen” most liberal blue states. In descending order of fiscal irresponsibility, from 50th to 37th, here’s the list of fiscal shame:
The 12th state in the “dirty dozen” list—Delaware—does not fare particularly well either, placing 30th out of the 50 states.
(In an article published at Breithbart on the 4th of July, I offered a definition of these “dirty dozen” to include those states that gave President Obama more than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 Presidential election.)
The Mercatus Center report ranked the 50 states “based on their fiscal solvency in five separate categories:”
(1) Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?
(2) Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues? Or does it have a budget shortfall?
(3) Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?
(4) Service-level solvency. How much fiscal “slack” does a state have to increase spending should citizens demand more services?
(5) Trust fund solvency. How much debt does a state have? How large are its unfunded pen­sion and health care liabilities?
The Mercatus Center report supports an assertion I made in that earlier article:
One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one [consisting of the “Great 38 States” in flyover country which President Obama either lost or obtained less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 Presidential election] where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other [those “dirty dozen” liberal blue states] where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.
The “dirty dozen” liberal blue states are headed towards the sort of fiscal insolvency now unraveling the country of Greece, and their fiscal recklessness may well drag down the entire federal government as well. All the more reason for the rest of us in the “Great 38 States” to consider convening an Assembly of the States so that fiscally responsible states can assert their sovereign rights guaranteed by the 10th amendment. Those sovereign rights include the right not to be forced to pay for another state’s profligacy.

Monday, July 6, 2015


“Take this Supreme Court decision and shove it.”

new Rasmussen Poll indicates that a growing number of Americans want state governments to tell the Supreme Court to get out of the business of rewriting laws and telling American citizens how to live their lives.
In a new poll, Rasmussen reported the percentage of Americans who want states to tell the Supreme Court it does not have the power to rewrite the Affordable Care Act or force sovereign states to authorize gay marriages has increased from 24 percent to 33 percent after last week’s Constitution-defying decisions by the court.
A closer look at the poll results indicates that popular sentiment for state defiance of the federal government extends beyond just the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.
“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.
“Take this regulation and shove it,” and “take this grant and shove it,” are two additional battle cries which appear to resonate with a growing popular sentiment, especially in “flyover country,” those 38 states outside the dozen in which President Obama won more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012.
(In descending order of support for Obama, those twelve states are: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine. Arguably, three additional states where President Obama won between 54 percent and 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 could be added to this list: Washington, Oregon, and Michigan.)
One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.
The Tea Party movement arose in 2009 to restore those principles of constitutionally-limited government. But despite electoral victories that placed Republicans in control of the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, it is undeniable that the Republican establishment those elections empowered is instead aligned with the forces of statism.
The majority of the members of the Supreme Court itself are also clearly part of the “elitist” camp of anti-constitutionalists. As Breitbart’s Thomas Williams noted, and Justice Scalia himself pointed out in his scathing dissent in the gay marriage decision, not a single member of the nine member court is of the Protestant faith. Not a single member has graduated from a law school other than Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. Nor has a single member done anything other than practice some version of corporate law with “big law” firms, sit on a federal court, work for the federal government, or work in left-wing academia.
With the entire apparatus of the federal government now aligned against constitutionally limited government, some traditionalists have given themselves over to despair and defeatism. That negative view, however, fails to understand the solution provided to usurpations of power by the central government found within the Constitution itself, with origins in the Declaration of Independence, whose signing on July 4, 1776 we celebrate today.
As Rasmussen Reports noted, “The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document that Americans honor on the Fourth of July, says that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, but just 25% believe that to be true of the federal government today.”
Even more significantly, however, the recent Supreme Court decisions are a complete rejection of the concepts of state sovereignty articulated in the 10th amendment, the last element of the Bill of Rights, the promise of whose passage by the First Congress was key to the ratification of the Constitution.
The 10th amendment, ratified along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The concept of popular resistance to the unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government on the rights of individuals and states has been gaining momentum over the past several years.
Conservative radio host Mark Levin, for instance, has advocated on behalf of an Article V Convention of the States to propose new amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the states that would limit federal powers.
Conservative author and intellectual leader Charles Murray has also advocated for a type of civil disobedience to resist unlawful federal regulations through the use of well funded legal challenges to the most egregious of those regulations.
Both concepts have merit, but ultimately lack the power and effective counter-attack available through the simple mechanism offered by the 10th amendment—widespread resistance to federal overreaches by the state governments themselves.
Bolder, constitutionally based resistance at the state level, is a practical and viable remedy, one that already has broad popular support among conservatives.
As Rasmussen Reports noted:
[T]he voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers. During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.
Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.
Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.
Widespread resistance at the state level, however, will require two elements: strong governors and strong state legislatures willing to vigorously assert their 10th amendment rights.
At the local level, we’ve already seen the first indications that a movement may be afoot. In Tennessee, for example, the entire Decatur County Clerk’s Office resigned rather than enforce the recent gay marriage decision announced by the Supreme Court.
Isolated pockets of resistance are springing up around the country.
And yet, even among “The Great 38 States”—flyover country where President Obama either lost or won less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 election—leadership at the executive level is lacking.
The next electoral battle for the preservation of the constitutional republic will be fought not only for the highest office of the executive branch in 2016—it will also be fought in the gubernatorial races of those “Great 38 States” where the vast majority of voters still believe in America, and still believe in constitutionally limited government.
Freedom of the individual states from the usurpations of the federal government does not mean secession from the constitutional republic. It is, instead, the surest realistic mechanism that remains to preserve the constitutional republic.
By limiting the role of the federal government to the exercise of that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, state governments can guarantee that our constitutional republic will continue to flourish for generations to come.
The alternative is a constitutional republic in name only, a dystopian oligarchy where words have no meaning, right is wrong, good is bad, truth is deception, and the rule of law is invented anew each day by the ruling class of federal royalty.
As for that dirty dozen of liberal blue states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts? Let them continue on their path of reckless spending and experience the fate of modern Greece.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to choose liberty.

Popular Posts