TRANSCRIPT: Cruz vs. Rove – Today’s Showdown on Fox

Senator Ted Cruz, one of the leaders of the movement to defund Obamacare using the “power of the purse”, was interviewed extensively by Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Cruz, as usual, was incredibly impressive in describing the rationale and tactics behind the effort:

WALLACE: Hello, again. The clock is ticking. The government shuts down in just eight days unless congress agrees on a bill to fund federal agencies. On Friday the House passed a bill to keep the government going until mid December but they also cut off funding for Obamacare, and Harry Reid said that is dead in the Senate. Ted Cruz is leading the drive, welcome back to “Fox News Sunday.”

CRUZ: Thank you, Chris, good to be here today.

WALLACE: We just played a clip where you say you will do everything you can to block it with a filibuster, but the problem is you will be blocking a bill you support. So how are you going to get other remember Senators on board to block a bill you support.

CRUZ: Let’s be clear. Last week’s vote was a tremendous victory. A few weeks ago no pundit thought it was possible. They voted to defund Obamacare, and next year as you know the fight moves to the Senate. And I think next week is a time for party immunity. All Senate Republicans I think should come together and support the House bill. They should stop Harry Reid from changing the House bill and for inserting the funding with 51 votes. That will be the fight whether he can use a straight party line vote — and Senate Republicans, if they stand together, we can stop Harry Reid.

WALLACE: Are you going to block consideration of the bill? Will you allow consideration of the bill? You can filibuster that. If you lose that, then a simple majority could take out Obamacare. So are you going to have a consideration of the bill, a vote up or down, or let them vote to block a bill that you support?

CRUZ: First we will ask Harry Reid if had will allow amendments to be subject to 60-vote threshold. In all likelihood will say no because he wanted to force funding through with Democrats. He does that even Senate Republicans have the tool that we always used when the majority leader is abusing his power. We can filibuster and say we will not allow use to add the funding back for Obamacare with just 51 votes.

WALLACE: If I may, you say this is brute political power, it’s Senate rule 22 that has been around for years. It says you say allow debate, that you can pass an amendment by a simple majority, that’s the rule.

CRUZ: What’s good for the rule, it’s good for the gander. And that’s the reason that the Senate, generally on controversial votes, we work out an agreement for it to be subject to a 60 vote threshold. If the majority is going to run the minority over with a train, they have the ability to stop them. So if he says I’m going to run the Republicans other and ignore the bill passed been and I’m going to do this on a 51 vote threshold, in my mind, it should be easy for them to stand and support House Republicans. Any vote to allow Harry Reid to add funding, a vote for cloture is a vote for Obamacare. And I think they will stand side by side and listen to the people and stop this train wreck that is Obamacare.

WALLACE: First of all, you need 41 votes, your vote and 40 others to go with you to block consideration of the House bill in the Senate, how many do you have right now, Senator?

CRUZ: We don’t know right now and this week we will determine that. This is a fast moving target. Just a few weeks ago we didn’t have any of the votes we needed in the House or Senate. I knew all along this would be a long journey. Stage was one unify the person people. We have had a petition signed and people calling their Senators saying stop Obamacare.

CRUZ: Stage three is next week why Senate Republicans, it’s now our turn to unify and stand together with House Republicans. This may end up going back to the House. And I fully believe the House will go on. And I believe first it is Republicans, if you’re a democrat running for reelection in Arkansas, and you get calls from your constituents, it changes the calculus entirely. But that will not happen until we unify Republicans.

WALLACE: Here is the question that everyone on both sides is asking which is what’s your end game? Let’s say you block consideration of any bill in the Senate. They take out Obamacare and they send it back to the House. What’s your end game? Because the government will shut down a week from Monday.

CRUZ: I don’t want the government to shut down, the American people don’t, and I don’t think they should shut down the government. If that happens. If Harry Reid kills this bill in it the Senate, I think the House should hold it’s ground and start passing smaller resolutions one department at a time. Fund the military, send it over, and see it Harry Reid is willing to shut down the military because he wants to force Obamacare on the American people. If the House can keep driving this — the House is the only body where the Republicans have a majority. My job is supporting as much support and air cover as we can for the House to stand up and lead.

WALLACE: Senator, I think it’s fair to say that you ticked off a lot of your fellow Republicans who feel you got them into this fight without an end and without a strategy. They have gone on the record. Tim griffin wrote so far Senate Republicans are good at getting Facebook likes and town halls, not much else. Pete king calls you a fraud. If he can deliver on this, fine, if not he should keep quiet from now on. And bob corker of Tennessee said I didn’t go to Harvard or Princeton, but I can count Republicans that say you’re pushing them into a fight you don’t know how to finish. Senator?

CRUZ: Well, look. There is lots of folks in Washington that can choose to throw rocks, and I’m not going to reciprocate or do likewise. We have career politicians in both parties in Washington that are not listening to Americans. The American people are hurting because Obamacare is not working. It’s killing jobs, it’s driving up health insurance rates, it caused them to lose their insurance. People are hearing from their constituents in overwhelming numbers.

WALLACE: The Democrats feel that you have given them the political high ground in all of this. I want to play with president Obama said last night.

OBAMA: You would be willing to shut down the government and potentially default for the first time in United States history because it bothers you so much that we’re going to make sure that everybody has affordable health care.

WALLACE: Senator, you’re completely right. But people also don’t want to shut down the government to have this. There is a new Republican poll out late last week, a Republican group, 71-23, don’t shut down the government for this.

CRUZ: Here is a lot of ways to phrase this. The majority of Republicans want Obamacare defunded. Last week the wall street journal found that Americans trust Democrats more. And let me suggest the reason why is because we’re standing up and leading the fight. Voters learned that there’s enough talk from Washington, stand up and do it. You just have to get out of Washington dc and listen to the American people. Listen to small businesses laying people off. People struggling for jobs. And the people who are hurting, I hear from them every single day. Women with pre-existing conditions losing their coverage because of Obamacare.

WALLACE: We’re almost out of time. You have a lot of valid criticisms about Obamacare. But if it comes down, if the Senate ping-pongs this back to the House, if it is Obamacare or shut down the government, what’s your position? Keep the government going or keep fighting about Obamacare.

CRUZ: I believe we should stand our ground and I don’t think Harry Reid and Barack Obama should shut down the federal government. The House voted to fund the federal government. If he kills that, Harry Reid is responsible for that. Don’t fund Obamacare because it’s hurting the American people. That’s in Senate Democrats want out because it’s not working.

WALLACE: We’ll talk about that with Senator McCaskill of the next segment. We’ll stay on top of the battle of the budget. It should be interesting.

CRUZ: Thank you, Chris.

The Beltway Establishment ain’t happy with Cruz and Mike Lee. Chris Wallace, during his “Power Panel” segment, mentioned that disgruntled Republican insiders had actually fed him opposition research.

“This has been one of the strangest weeks I’ve ever had in Washington,” Wallace said. “As soon as we listed Ted Cruz as our guest this week, I got unsolicited research and questions, not from Democrats, but from top Republicans to hammer Cruz. Why are Republicans so angry at Ted Cruz?”

Rove insisted it was because Cruz and fellow Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee decided to devise a strategy to defund Obamacare without consulting Republican leadership.

Rove is his usual disingenuous self.

After the Tea Party and Constitutional conservatives swept the Republicans into power in 2010, what did the House leadership do, Karl? Did they embrace the huge crop of new freshmen, incorporate their concerns into their agenda, and install the best of them into key committee slots?

No. No. And no. John Boehner in the House and Mitch McConnell in the Senate did everything they could to intimidate the conservatives and keep them in check. They ignored their concerns and avoided real fights over spending and the debt ceiling. And they made sure that none of the conservatives were given the key slots they deserved by dint of their immense followings.

In fact, Boehner and McConnell have done everything in their power to disenfranchise conservatives; their mouthpieces including Rove and the RNC suppressed turnout by attacking primary winners like Sharron Angle, Richard Mourdock, and Christine O’Donnell.

What kind of “leadership” attacks members of their own party?

For two years, Boehner and McConnell did nothing — nothing — to fight Barack Obama’s agenda. They’ve done nothing serious to investigate the outrageous scandals plaguing this administration. They refuse to name a Select Investigative Committee on Benghazi; they refuse to demand a Special Prosecutor for IRS-Gate; and heaven knows what they’re doing about the illegal wiretaps of reporters or the illicit activities of the NSA.

In fact, the country club Republican leaders have been so feckless and power-hungry, they actually suppressed the turnout in 2012. They disenfranchised and demoralized the conservative base.

Karl Rove-style leadership: the same guy who blew $ 400 million on losing candidates, according to Donald Trump.

Giving money to Rove is like investing with Bernie Madoff.

We the people want Obamacare obliterated. We the people demand action. This government isn’t John Boehner’s or Karl Rove’s. It ours! This is our government!

And if the old bulls in the GOP won’t do what we want, then they need to make way for new blood. Stop your insane attacks on those who actually energize the base! That’s my warning: stop these attacks or you risk destroying the Republican Party.

Karl and Johnny: is that really what you want your legacy to be?

Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Doug Ross @ Journal

‘This Week’ Transcript: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks

On ABC’s This Week earlier today, former Clinton apparatchik-turned-journalist George Stephanopoulos interviewed Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks — the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya — as the anniversary of the deadly attack nears.

And we still can’t find out what the President what was doing for nine hours as Americans fought, bled and died.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We’re talking about people being killed by gas and you want to go talk about Benghazi.

REPRESENTATIVE JEFF DAVIS: Absolutely want to talk about Benghazi. Four Americans lost their lives.

SECRETARY KERRY: We don’t deserve to drag this into yet another Benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the Congress is going to stand up for international norms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year later as you can see, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is still a political football. But for the Americans there on the ground it was a story of heartbreak and the struggle to survive. Greg Hicks was the Diplomat in Charge that night. The only officer who has spoken out about that harrowing night. This dramatic account is an ABC News exclusive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY HICKS, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION IN LIBYA: I’ve been perplexed and frustrated with the way this has all played out. Because to me this is a simple story. Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi to do his job. To what he knew Secretary Clinton wanted him to do. And he was attacked while he was there.

And the American staff in Benghazi and in Tripoli responded as we’ve been trained to do, in an amazing way, to save the lives of our people who were in Benghazi. Unfortunately we lost four people in the line of duty.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s take a look back at the events of that night. You’re home in Tripoli–

HICKS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That evening at around what, 9:45?

HICKS: It’s at 9:45 Tripoli time, right, 3:45 Washington time. Our regional security officer comes running into the house where I was and yells, Greg! Greg! The consulate’s under attack! And I immediately look at my telephone and I see a missed call. I call back on that number, I get the Ambassador.

And the Ambassador says Greg we’re under attack.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Chris Stevens.

HICKS: Chris Stevens. And I say, OK and the line is cut.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s it.

HICKS: And that’s all.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We are under attack.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You knew there were a lot of bad, a lot of bad guys in country.

HICKS: We knew that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were also worried about the overall security situation and the amount of protection both the Embassy and the Consulate had.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the Ambassador had been concerned about that?

HICKS: He had been concerned. He had sent in a cable in July requesting that our security personnel situation not change.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You had a special security team in place.

HICKS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Then it was reassigned.

HICKS: Exactly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: On the night of the attack, there were five diplomatic security agents with Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. There are at least 20 hostile attackers in the compound.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Months earlier the State Department had forged an agreement that in the event of an attack on the vulnerable Benghazi Mission, Security personnel would response from a nearby facility called The Annex, run by the CIA.

I know that you can’t say so, but we know it was a CIA facility, and we know that the CIA facility was getting protection and more security than the diplomatic facility.

HICKS: The numbers are clear about twice as many in terms of trained security providers.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What did you tell Washington?

HICKS: I called Washington right after I talked to the Annex Chief and I told them that the consulate was under attack. That the–

STEPHANOPOULOS: You used the word attack?

HICKS: I did use the word attack. That there were at least 20 armed intruders in the compound and that help was on the way from the Annex.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Had you heard anything earlier in the day about any kind of protest or were you worried at all because of these reports of this video?

HICKS: No it was a non-event, the video, in Libya. And we had heard nothing about protests. The building had been set on fire by the attackers and our Diplomatic Security Agents there were heavily outnumbered.

STEPHANOPOULOS: About an hour after the attack began, the heavily armed CIA Team arrives at the mission.

HICKS: They began trying to find the Ambassador and Sean Smith who were unable to get out of the burning building. After tremendous efforts and exposing themselves to serious harm, they did find Sean and pulled him out. Unfortunately he was already dead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So while all this is happening, what are you saying to Washington?

HICKS: I’m reporting it back to Washington every 15 or 20 minutes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: State Department?

HICKS: State Department Operations Center. Exactly. By this time there’s a second wave of attackers and looters coming to the Compound. Many, many poor people than–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Dozens?

HICKS: Yeah dozens. Perhaps hundreds. There’s no way that 10 or 11 guys who were there can hold that off. So the decision is made to evacuate. They have to ram their way out of the compound. They are immediately brought under fire including heavy machine gun fire.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The entire group now heads back to the Annex but they have not found Ambassador Stevens.

HICKS: When they get back to the Annex they come under attack there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So at this point, this is ongoing battle. Did you ask for reinforcements?

HICKS: I had already spoken to the defense attache. I asked what help is coming? And he said there’s some fighters in Aviano but it’s going to be 2 or 3 hours before they could make an appearance. It was clear it was going to be a long time before any help came. So I made sure that people knew that they were going to have to hold out for as long as they could.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As the battle aged at the CIA Annex, a crowd overruns the now abandoned Mission. Some Libyans locate Ambassador Stevens, clinging to life, and rush him to a local hospital.

Meantime a team of reinforcements from Tripoli, military and CIA security has arrived at the Benghazi airport.

HICKS: About 3am, 9pm Washington, they get the call from the Prime Minister than Ambassador Stevens is dead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What did he tell you?

HICKS: He just says, I’m very sorry Greg to tell you this, but our friend Chris has passed on. I think those were his words. There was deep remorse in his voice when he said it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you?

HICKS: For me it, I think it’s the saddest moment in my career honestly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: With the news of Stevens’ death, the security team from Tripoli heads to the Annex.

HICKS: And soon after they get there the attack on the Annex is renewed. And then the mortars come in. Those are the rounds that killed Ty and Glen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since this has all happened we’ve seen all of the top Pentagon officials at the time, all the top Military officials said there was just no way to respond in time. Military assets could not get there.

HICKS: I don’t know exactly what was available. I still don’t quite understand why they couldn’t fly aircraft over to Benghazi. When I was a kid I grew up watching Western movies. And you know the Calvary always came. I just thought that they would come.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve had, you know, quite a journey yourself in this last year. Deciding to speak to Congress.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in May. Since then it appears you’ve been in something of career limbo inside the State Department.

HICKS: That’s correct. That’s true.

STEPHANOPOULOS: State Department this was an assignment you requested, you’re getting the same pay as before. But do you feel you’re being punished for speaking out?

HICKS: Yes I feel that I have been punished. I don’t know why I was punished. I don’t know why I was shunted aside. Put in a closet if you will.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the State Department know you’re speaking out now?

HICKS: No. They don’t know I’m here with you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Then why talk?

HICKS: Because the American people need to have the story. And Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glen Dohery’s names are names that should be remembered by every American for the sacrifice that they made.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Could those four American heroes have been saved?

HICKS: Sadly, I think that Ambassador Stephens and Sean Smith maybe not. Ty and Glen of course were killed in the mortar attack that took place eight hours after the initial attack. It’s possible they could have been saved, I think.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what’s the best way we can honor the memory of the four diplomats and security professionals who lost their lives that night?

HICKS: We can’t forget them. And we need to make sure that those people who are going out into the world on our behalf have the tools that they need and the resources they need to do the job that they’ve been asked to do for the people of the United States.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Greg Hicks right there. In response to his contention that he’s been punished, the State Department has sent us this statement which reads in part, “The State Department has not punished Mr. Hicks in any way. We appreciate his exemplary service on the evening of September 11th. His departure from Libya was entirely unrelated to any statements he may have made relating to the attack in Benghazi, and we are working with him on his next permanent assignment.”

Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Doug Ross @ Journal

MARK LEVIN TRANSCRIPT: Just How Desperate is the New Obamacare Sales Pitch?

Via Hannity

JOINING ME NOW, THE AUTHOR OF, NUMBER ONE ON AMAZON FOR OVER A WEEK, “THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS,” MARK LEVIN FROM HIS BUNKER.

SIR, HOW ARE YOU?

>> I’M GOOD, HOW ARE YOU, SEAN?

>> I GUESS NEXT THEY’LL BE SINGING SONGS TO CASTRO AFTER THIS, MARK.

>> YEAH, WHY NOT? I MEAN, WE’RE ADOPTING THE CASTRO AGENDA, AREN’T WE? OBAMA CARE IS A — NOT ONLY IS IT A COMPLETE DISASTER, BUT I’M AFRAID, SEAN, WE’RE NEVER GOING TO GET RID OF IT.

BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS DON’T WANT TO GET RID OF IT.

AND INSTEAD OF TAKING ON OBAMA AND TAKING ON THE LEFT, THEY’RE TAKING ON THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS AND ATTACKING THEM, TELLING US TO WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY.

THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS, THEY ARE ALWAYS SURRENDERING.

AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IF THEY’RE NOT GOING TO ALEAST ATTACK THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING OR USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION THAT FUNDS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT NOT THIS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT’S LEFT? ONCE THIS THING IS INSTITUTED, IT’S NOT GOING TO IMPLODE.

I HEAR THIS, OH, THE LAW IS GOING TO IMPLODE.

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF AN IMPLODING LAW?

>> NO, NEVER.

>> YOU HAVE TO REPEAL A LAW.

YOU HAVE TO DEFUND A LAW.

LAWS DON’T IMPLODE.

>> FOR ME –

>> THEY SAY —

>> YEAH.

>> THIS IS A LINE IN THE SAND.

EVERY ONE OF THESE GUYS RAN ON REPEALING OBAMA CARE AND REPLACING, EVERY ONE OF THEM.

I KNOW THE HOUSE, THEY HAD ALL THESE, I GUESS SYMBOLIC VOTES TO REPEAL IT, BUT NEVER OF THEM HAD TEETH IN IT.

NOW IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH AND IF THEY DON’T DO IT, AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, THEY’RE NOT ANY BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT EVEN FIGHTING.

THEY DON’T REPRESENT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

>> AND THEY WON’T EVEN FIGHT.

I MEAN, YOU GOT TO GIVE THIS TO THE LEFT.

THEY NEVER GIVE UP.

THEY FOUGHT FOR 100 YEARS FOR GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE.

THESE GUYS CAN’T EVEN FIGHT FOR TWO WEEKS.

ALL THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT SHUT DOWN, WE’LL GET BLAMED FOR IT.

SEE THIS LIST HERE — SORRY, I LEFT MY THIRD GRADE WHITE BOARD AT HOME.

I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL AND I USED WHAT IS CALLED PAPER.

SEE THIS LIST HERE? THESE ARE ALL THE TIMES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN.

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS, REPUBLICAN HOUSES AND SENATE, DEMOCRAT HOUSES AND SENATE.

THEY TALK ABOUT A POLITICAL CATASTROPHE IF WE SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT LIKE WE DID IN ’95 AND ’96 FOR THREE WEEKS.

SEAN, WE GAINED TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, LOST NINE IN THE HOUSE AFTER A BIG HOUSE WIN.

THESE WERE SOFT HOUSE SEATS.

WE KEPT A HUGE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, PICKED UP TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, MOVED TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET, GOT WORK FAIR IN THE WELFARE PROGRAM AND THE REPUBLICANS TODAY ARE CLAIMING THAT THAT’S THE POLITICAL DISASTER IF WE STAND STRONG.

>> ALL RIGHT, LET’S CUT THROUGH THE CLUTTER.

LET’S WALK THROUGH.

ALL RIGHT, SO, THEY COME BACK FROM THEIR AUGUST RECESS AND VACATION, AND LET’S SAY THEY FUND THE MILITARY, THEY FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, EVERY ASPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT, OUR DEBT, OUR OBLIGATIONS, THEY FUND IT ALL.

EXCEPT FOR OBAMA CARE.

THEN THEY SEND IT OVER TO THE SENATE.

THE MAJORITY, THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE.

LET’S WALK THROUGH THIS.

SO, THE GOVERNMENT IS FULLY FUNDED BUT FOR OBAMA CARE.

THEN IT GOES THE SENATE.

SAY THEY DON’T PICK IT UP.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

>> WELL, THEY’RE AFRAID THAT THEY DON’T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE, THE CONFIDENCE, THE KNOWLEDGE, OR THE ABILITY TO ARTICULATE WHO IS ACTUALLY SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

NOW, I DON’T SPEAK FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HARDLY.

BUT DO YOU REALIZE EVERY WEEKEND, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? DO YOU REALIZE EVERY HOLIDAY, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? I LIKE THE WEEKENDS, I LIKE MY HOLIDAYS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN.

>> ME, TOO.

>> AND THESE ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, THEY NEVER GO HOME.

WHETHER IT’S THE EPA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS IN PLACE FOR SO-CALLED ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL.

SO, I MEAN, WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

DO YOU EVER PLAY POKER AND SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND?

>> NEVER.

>> YOU SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND, THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND, SAYING, DON’T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, DON’T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

SO, WHAT DOES OBAMA SAY? THEY’RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH INCOMPETENT POLITICS.

>> IT’S COWARDLY.

>> WELL —

>> THERE WAS A REPORT BACK THAT YOU AND GOVERNOR PALIN TALKING ABOUT MAYBE HAVING A THIRD PARTY.

REAGAN ADDRESSED THIS.

YOU WORKED IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.

AND HE SAID, NO, WE NEED A REVITALIZED SECOND PARTY.

IF THIS ISN’T THE ISSUE TO REVITALIZE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THEN THEY ARE LETTING THIS OPPORTUNITY GO.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT CONSERVATIVES LIKE MYSELF AND LIKE YOURSELF, I’M DONE WITH THE REPUBLICANS, IF THEY DON’T FIGHT HERE.

I DON’T — I WILL NOT SUPPORT, I WILL NOT ENDORSE, I WILL NOT — ANYBODY THAT DOESN’T HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND UP ON THIS ISSUE.

BECAUSE IT’S DEVASTATING TO THE COUNTRY, WE’LL NEVER BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN IT.

DO YOU THINK THAT MOVEMENT WILL BE BIG?

>> I THINK SO.

I THINK IT’S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.

HERE’S THE THING.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T EVEN LIKE THIS LAW.

THE MORE THEY LEARN ABOUT IT, MORE OF IT THAT’S IMPLEMENTED AND OBAMA IS TRYING TO HIDE PARTS OF IT UNTIL AFTER THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS, THE WORSE IT’S GOING TO BE.

CAN YOU IMAGINE, THE REPUBLICANS ARE BEING HANDED AN ISSUE OF A GENERATION.

THE — OBAMA IS DESTROYING HEALTH CARE.

HE’S DRIVING UP COSTS.

HE’S CREATING DISLOCATION.

THEY CAN LAY THAT ALL AT HIS FEET.

IT’S BEEN HANDED TO THEM.

AND THERE’S SUCH MUSH HEADS AND MARBLE MOUTH, THEY CAN’T ARTICULATE THE CASE AGAINST IT.

>> LET ME TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF OBAMA CARE.

YOU ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.

BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS, YOUR BOOK HAS BEEN NUMBER ONE FOR OVER A WEEK ON AMAZON.

COM.

OBAMA’S MISSED NOW HALF THE DEADLINES FOR IMPLEMENTING OBAMA CARE.

NOW, THIS WAS NOT EVEN PASSED, AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, IN A LEGAL FASHION.

FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, IF THAT’S THE LAW, AND THE DEADLINES ARE NOT MET, DOES THE PRESIDENT UNILATERALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY HE’S NOT GOING TO IMPLEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EMPLOYER MANDATE OR THE OTHER AREAS THEY PUT IN DELAYS? >> IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW REPEATEDLY, THE ANSWER IS YES.

IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION REREPEATEDLY, INCLUDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, THE ANSWER IS YES.

IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

>> WHY?

>> WHY, WELL, LOOK AT JOHN BOEHNER AND MITCH McCONNELL.

THE SUPREME COURT REWROTE THE CONSTITUTION AND REWROTE THE LAW TO PUT IT IN PLACE.

THIS IS THE POINT.

IF WE THINK WE’RE GOING TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LIBERTY REFORMATION OR REVITALIZATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION WITH A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS CREATED ITS OWN DESIGN WITH DEMOCRATS THAT KEEP DRAGGING US OVER THE CLIFF AND REPUBLICANS WHO KEEP STANDING THERE WATCHING, WE’RE NOT.

WHICH IS THE REASON I WROTE THE BOOK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CHALLENGES NOW THAT EXIST FOR INCUMBENT SENATORS LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM AND LAMAR ALEXANDER, THESE TEA PARTY CANDIDATES NOW STEPPING UP AND THEY’RE CHALLENGING THEM.

DO YOU THINK THAT THEY’RE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES AND THESE GUYS MAY PAY A PRICE FOR NOT FIGHTING? >> I DON’T KNOW EVERY CANDIDATE IN EVERY CASE, BUT I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM.

WE NEED AS MANY CAPABLE, ARTICULATE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN GET THEM WELL FUNDED CANDIDATES, TO CHALLENGE THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS AS POSSIBLE.

LINDSEY GRAHAM IS A DISASTER.

I MEAN — I CAN PICK ALMOST ANY ISSUE IN WHICH HE’S A DISASTER.

LAMAR ALEXANDER IS ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICANS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS GUY STANDS FOR.

>> LET ME PLAY DEVIL’S ADVOCATE.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT SAY, THOSE MODERATES, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAN GET ELECTED.

REPUBLICANS NEED TO BE MORE MODERATE.

I DON’T BELIEVE THAT.

YOU HEAR IT SAID ON THIS NETWORK.

>> YOU MEAN –

>> WHAT?

>> RIGHT.

WE CAN ONLY ELECT MODERATES FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY? I DON’T THINK THAT’S ACCURATE AT ALL.

WE CAN ELECT SOLID CONSERVATIVES FROM THOSE STATES AND IN THE PAST, WE HAVE.

WHAT HAPPENS IS, THESE GUYS, THEY GET TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND IMMEDIATELY, BOOM.

RATHER THAN THEM REPRESENTING US IN WASHINGTON, THEY REPRESENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO US AND THEY TRY TO CONVINCE US TO GO ALONG.

I’VE HAD IT.

YOU’VE HAD IT.

MILLIONS OF US HAVE HAD IT.

>> GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.

MORE WITH THE GREAT ONE, MARK LEVIN.

HIS NEW BOOK IS IN BOOKSTORES EVERYWHERE.

Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Doug Ross @ Journal

TRANSCRIPT: Mark Levin on Cavuto — Obama’s Scandals are Real, It’s His Rhetoric That’s Phony

Mark Levin, appearing today on Your World With Neil Cavuto:

This President could give a damn about serious investigations regarding the scandals swirling around his administration. And then his lackeys go on TV, including Fox News Sunday, and tell us there’s no evidence? Their people plead the Fifth. The Attorney General doesn’t conduct investigations.

And what’s necessary is for the Republicans in the House to get their act together.

We don’t need five separate House committees investigating Benghazi. We need one Special Investigative Commitee — with former U.S. assistant attorneys and other types of prosecutors, who are serious people and have the resources necessary full-time to pursue these matters — and put the information out on the table.

Same with the Internal Revenue Service investigation. We’ve got committees tripping over one another, claiming jurisdiction. Once again, we need experts, we need to pursue these things with a Special Investigative Committee.

And then the pressure builds for a Special Prosecutor. Even though Holder won’t want to appoint one, over time enough information will come out where it will become necessary.

The President of the United States — it’s been almost a year — will still not tell the American people what he was doing for eight-and-a-half hours after our consulate was attacked in Benghazi…

The President uses his word phony [to describe his scandals]. It’s actually a perfect word for him, because his speeches are phony, his promises are phony, his economy is phony, the whole damn thing is phony.

Let me tell you something… from my point of view, once more, the Speaker of the House, he’s in charge of organizing these investigations… and he won’t. They’re flopping around, they’re navel-gazing… because they don’t think there’s anything political in this. They’re playing rope-a-dope, they’re playing it safe, they want to push through the next election.

Boehner wants to remain Speaker, Cantor Majority Leader… the point is, the fact is, if they’d been running effective investigations, one committee — a joint committee — with some of the sharpest, toughest individuals we know investigating Benghazi, we’d be to the bottom of this already.

Same with the IRS scandal. The president should be served with an interrogatory. It’s been done before…

What is everybody talking about? Weiner’s weiner, for God’s sakes… The Trayvon Martin case, that went on for a month.

Meanwhile, we have an Internal Revenue Service that was illegally attacking United States citizens because of their politics, because of their political viewpoints, because of their religion. I mean, for crying out loud, if that doesn’t raise an uproar… we have four Americans dead and the President of the United States is running all over the country and refuses to tell the American people what the hell he was doing for eight-and-a-half hours. I think he was sleeping. But he won’t say.

We have this NSA — massive gathering of telephone numbers — basically nationalizing the phone companies’ records as if that’s going to fight terrorism…

[On Christie's support of the NSA program and attacks on Rand Paul] …Maybe this Chris Christie can get in front of these 9/11 families and tell us how this NSA program would have saved a single life or prevented a single terrorist attack. You know how these terrorists got into this country? The border wasn’t secure and they overstayed their visas. What is Chris Christie’s position on that?

Christie’s weak on Amnesty. So I think it’s a mistake for him to use 9/11 to attack who he believes will be his political opponents in a Republican primary…

We conservatives have been fighting against the Republican establishment for half a century, whether they take the form of Chris Christie, or Romney… or Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon.

This country needs to move in a new direction, economically, Constitutionally, when it comes to our Bill of Rights.

Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Doug Ross @ Journal

HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT: Mark Levin Introduces His New Book “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic”

Unlike the statists who defy, ignore and rewrite the Constitution for purpose of evasion — as they push their big government rules and regulations — I propose that we, the people, take a closer look at the Constitution itself for our preservation. The Constitution provides the means for restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe. Or, in the case of societal collapse, resurrecting the civil society in Article V.

Article V sets forth the two process for amending the Constitution, the second of which we’re going to focus on. Article V says, in part:

Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Importantly, and I want to emphasize this, in neither case of amending the Constiiution does Article V provide for a Constitutional Convention. This is important, because you’ll hear critics say, “We don’t need a Constitutional Convention! We’ll never get anyone better than the Framers!”

And they’re right! This isn’t a Constitutional Convention. This is a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.

In other words, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution — and has in 27 cases that have been ratified — and the states can too, through the convention process. The first method, where two-thirds of Congress passes a proposed amendment and then forwards it to the state legislatures for possible ratification by three-fourths vote. And that has occurred 27 times.

The second method, involving the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures, for a convention of proposing amendments — not a Constitutional Convention, a convention for proposing amendments, which would thereafter require three-fourths of the states to ratify — has been tried in the past without success. And today it sits dormant.

The fact is: Article V expressly grants state legislatures significant authority to re-balance the Constitutional structure for the purposes of restoring our founding principles should the federal government shed its limitations, abandon its original purpose, and grow too powerful as many delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention feared.

Which is exactly why they provided for two methods of amending the Constitution. On June 11, 1787 — at the Constitutional Convention — George Mason of Virginia, one of the most underrated of the Founding Fathers and one of the greatest men in American history, who had drafted Virginia’s “Declaration of Rights”, the precursor to the Declaration of Independence… he responded to some of the delegates who didn’t see the necessity of having the states propose amendments. Which Mason strongly advocated for!

In [James] Madison’s Notes from the Constitutional Convention, he writes about Mason’s comments:

Colonel Mason urged the necessity of such a provision : “The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments, therefore, will be necessary ; and it will be better to provide for them in an easy, regular and constitutional way, than to trust to chance
and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the national legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their assent on that very account. The opportunity for such an abuse may be the fault of the Constitution calling for amendment.”

And so there was some debate. And two days before the end of the Constitutional Convention — on September 15th — Mason was back at it. Mason, concerned that Congress would have the sole power to propose amendments, continued to insist on state authority to call for conventions. George Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments curtailing its own tyranny.

Back to Madison’s Notes, citing Mason, “thought the plan of amending the Constitution ‘exceptionable and dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.’”

Quote, unquote, Madison’s Notes, September 15th, 1787.

Mr. Governeur Morris, Mr. Eldridge Jerry of Massachusetts moved as to amend the article as to require a convention on application of two-thirds of the states.

And there you have it.

Under both amendment procedures, the Constitution requires at least three-fourths of the states ratify the amendment — either by their state legislatures or by the state conventions. So again, rather than Congress proposing amendments, what’s suggested here is that the states can and should convene to do the same thing.

Now: I was originally very skeptical of amending the Constitution by the state convention process. I, like many of you, was concerned that it could turn into a runawy caucus, And, as an ardent defender of the Constitution who reveres the brilliance of the Framers, I presumed this would play disastrously into the hands of the Statists.

But today but I am a confident and enthusiastic advocate for the process. The text of Article V makes it abundantly clear that there is a serious check in place, whether the product of Congress or the state convention, A proposed amendment has no effect at all unless ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by the conventions in three-fourths thereof.

This, ladies and gentlemen, should extinguish concerns that the convention process could hijack the Constitution. It is impossible. And after more research and reflection, the issue crystallized further for me. If the Framers were alarmed that states calling for “a convention proposing for amendments to the Constitution” could undo the entire undertaking of the Constitutional Convention, then why did they craft, adopt and endorse the language?

And it was strongly endorsed in the Federalist Papers — by Madison and Hamilton in Federalist 43 and Federalist 85.

And here’s the beauty of the process: Congress’ role in the state application process is minimal and ministerial. And it couldn’t be otherwise, because the Framers and Ratifiers adopted the state convention process for the purpose of establishing an alternative to the Congressionally-initiated amendment process. That was the point.

Now you can see why the ruling class and their little mouthpieces are going to hate me: because this removes power from them.

It gives power to the state delegates and state senators, who you will have an effect on one day. And this is what my new book is about: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.

Doug Ross @ Journal