THE AMERICAN TRINITY

The United States is built on a foundation of three unique, core values that shall be known as the American Trinity.

INDEPENDENCE DAY: OLD INK, ETERNAL IDEALS

Following the announcement of the Declaration on July 4, 1776 and the eventual parchment version being signed on August 2, 1776, the document itself was neglected after the revolution.  Even early celebrations of Independence Day ignored the original statement of that independence.  It was the act that was thought important, not the text.

The Declaration became important again after the founding of political parties.  Once that happened, Jefferson's supporters used the fact that he wrote it to their political advantage.  This created heated back and forth over the document's authorship itself and eventually resulted in it being more prominently thought of in terms of importance of the text.  Even then, however, it wasn't until the 1850s that the document itself became important for more than historical reasons.

Once the abolitionist movement gained prominence in the early 1850s the "all men are created equal…" concept embedded in the Declaration became useful in the struggle to end slavery in the United States.

This usage of the text was taken up by Abraham Lincoln in 1854.  He felt that the Founding Fathers expected that slavery would be a dying institution in the new United States.   Lincoln also felt that the Declaration of Independence was one of the founding documents of the nation and not just a simple statement declaring secession from Britain.  He used this view frequently in his arguments against slavery:

"Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a 'sacred right of self-government.' … Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. … Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. … If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving."

Lincoln's view that the Declaration was one of the founding documents in terms of defining the nation eventually became the nation's view, even though it was not predominately so before him.  This was an extremely important development in America's history in terms of interpreting the Constitution.

You can read more about the history of the document itself here. 

TEDDY FLIP-FLOP KEEPS LYING ABOUT MARCO...

Friday night in South Carolina, Ted Cruz claimed that he and Marco disagree about defunding Planned Parenthood. The facts in Marco's record say otherwise.

This is a desperate politically motivated attack: Marco has a sterling pro-life record, has consistently voted to defund Planned Parenthood, and would make it a priority to protect life as POTUS.

Here's just how dishonest Cruz's attack is: The nonpartisan group National Right to Life has totally rejected it as "inaccurate and misleading."

Statement from @nrlc president @CarolTobias1 on Rubio/Cruz & defunding PP: pic.twitter.com/KeeJ8Vaw3q

— Andrew Bair (@ProLifePolitics) February 13, 2016

And pro-life conservatives didn't just reject the attack - they were disgusted by it.

NEW this AM: @TGowdySC responds to @tedcruz's dishonest attacks on @marcorubio's pro-life record. pic.twitter.com/2cHVGpMJyC

— Micah (@MicahTNDC) February 13, 2016

NEW: @RickSantorum joins @TGowdySC and @nrlc in responding to @tedcruz's lies about @marcorubio's pro-life record. pic.twitter.com/xmoFhZl6ip

— Micah (@MicahTNDC) February 13, 2016

.@BobbyJindal says @tedcruz stood in front of hundreds yesterday & lied about @marcorubio. #TellTheTruthTed pic.twitter.com/Tqjilo8srL

— CLINTHREED (@CLINTHREED) February 13, 2016

Conservative activists were turned off by it as well:

As a Cruz supporter, it's very, very difficult to buy any claim that Rubio is not a full-throated supporter of ending abortion in every form

— Charlie Cafazza (@Cafazza) February 12, 2016

This is jaw-droppingly dishonest https://t.co/d2uZJZdk9b

— Ellen L. Carmichael (@ellencarmichael) February 13, 2016

Honestly I'm waiting for a Cruz supporter to condemn these baseless attacks on Rubio. It's getting to be gross
https://t.co/YLp1esnnOJ

— GSimms (@GSimmsTrades) February 13, 2016

As Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com tactfully put it:

In the craziness of a presidential campaign, sometimes rumors get started that, with the advent of social media, that take hold and appear to become gospel - even though they're not true. One such Internet rumor is the false claim that pro-life Florida Senator Marco Rubio opposes de-funding Planned Parenthood. This rumor is easy to refute, as Rubio voted not once but three times in recent months for legislation to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

Refuting the claim, Jahan Wilcox, a spokesman for Rubio, told TheBlaze: "Marco Rubio has always voted with Tim Scott and Joni Ernst to defund Planned Parenthood and anything to the contrary is false."

In fact, Rubio voted in December for a pro-life bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood, before that he voted for a Planned Parenthood de-funding bill in September, and Rubio also voted in August for a measure to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

Earlier this year, in exclusive comments to LifeNews.com, Rubio said he would sign a bill to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business "immediately" if elected president.

Ertelt also points out that Planned Parenthood has gone on record stating that Marco Rubio is their worst nightmare. He concludes:

It would be a shame if any pro-life candidate lost an election over false rumors that he or she is not pro-life when the candidate has compiled a sterling 100% pro-life voting record, as has Rubio.

On the campaign trail, Teddy claims he is the consistent conservative who voters can trust. However, whether it's immigration, foreign policy, trade, agriculture, or marriage, voters have long since learned that Teddy is more #calculaTED than consistent. Now, as he and his campaign reach for new lows with a series of outright lies and questionable tactics, voters are learning that he can't be trusted.

Teddy's recent questionable tactics and outright lies include…

CARSON RUMORS: On Iowa caucus night, the Cruz campaign was accused of "sabotaging Carson" by passing around rumors he was dropping out of the race. "Dr. Ben Carson and his campaign accused Sen. Ted Cruz's team of sabotaging Carson in the Iowa caucuses Monday night by encouraging Cruz supporters to tell voters at their caucus sites – incorrectly – that Carson was dropping out of the race. 'It was happening all over,' Iowa State Director Ryan Rhodes told MSNBC. 'One of the precincts Candy [Carson, the candidate's wife] walked into, she had to correct the record. She actually walked in, in Ankeny, and gave a speech about no, he's still in the race and that's a lie.'" (MSNBC, 2/1/16)

LIES ABOUT RUBIO'S STRONG SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE: Weekly Standard's Michael Warren: Cruz being "shifty" and not forthright in attacking others on marriage. CAROL COSTELLO: "I will say Michael the gay marriage issue is probably very important in a state like South Carolina, and he wants to get ahead of what Ted Cruz is accusing him of." MICHAEL WARREN: "That's right. Let's be honest here I mean Cruz is being somewhat shifty on this at least with regard to Marco Rubio. I mean Rubio came out after that decision and said that while this is the law of the land, that he would appoint court appointments who would seek to overturn this law. So Cruz isn't being quite forthright about this." (CNN, 2/13/16)

LIES TO COVER-UP HIS OWN SUPPORT FOR JOHN ROBERTS: Told NBC that because John Roberts "didn't have a track record," he "would not have nominated" him. CHUCK TODD: "You were a big supporter of him, but in hindsight you're not. Is that because you think that he didn't have a track record?" CRUZ: "He didn't have a track record and I would not have nominated John Roberts. Once George Bush nominated him, I supported the nomination as a Republican nominee." (NBC's "Meet the Press," 2/14/16)

Back in 2005, however, Teddy supported Roberts and specifically dismissed the "insufficient record" argument against Roberts since "he has a far longer record that is relevant: his professional career as a Supreme Court litigator." "His nomination has been met with widespread praise, from left and right. Nevertheless, there are some who have raised complaints that his two years on the bench provide insufficient record for them to assess (and attack) his jurisprudence. That complaint misses the mark for three reasons. First, his judicial record would have stretched 14 years, had Senate Democrats not delayed its consideration twice, in 1991 and again in 2001. When his nomination did finally make it to the Senate floor, in 2003, he was confirmed by unanimous consent. Second, many distinguished jurists, such as Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren and Justices O'Connor, Souter, and Thomas, similarly had very limited experience on the federal bench prior to ascending to the Court. And third, although two years on the bench provides a limited number of opinions, he has a far longer record that is relevant: his professional career as a Supreme Court litigator." (Ted Cruz, Op-Ed, "The Right Stuff," National Review, 7/20/05)

PUSH POLLS: Cruz faces allegations of conducting push polls in South Carolina. "Ted Cruz denied all knowledge of robocalls being made in South Carolina on Thursday after Donald Trump accused the Texas senator's 'people' of 'doing very sleazy and dishonest "pushpolls" on me.' ...The episode follows a report by The Washington Post published earlier in the day that refers to robo-calls to potential voters in South Carolina that become hostile when the respondent voices support for a candidate other than Cruz. The Texas senator's campaign denied for that story that it was responsible for the calls, which said they were being conducted by Remington Research, the name of the consulting firm started by Jeff Roe, Cruz's campaign manager." (Politico, 2/11/16)

SOFTCORE PORN AD: Cruz campaign removed an ad from air that featured a softcore porn star. "Ted Cruz's campaign has pulled its most recent ad, ‘Conservatives Anonymous,' after learning one of the actors in the spot is also a softcore porn star. The ad, which was set at a group therapy session of conservative voters who feel betrayed by Marco Rubio on immigration, featured actor Amy Lindsay, who played a woman telling another group member, ‘Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time.' Lindsay has appeared in several softcore porn films, including Erotic Confessions, Carnal Wishes, Secrets of a Chambermaid, and Insatiable Desires." (BuzzFeed, 2/12/16)

And, just today...

ADS TAKEN DOWN: South Carolina television stations pull anti-Marco ad from pro-Cruz group after legal review." Television stations in South Carolina have pulled an ad from Stand for Truth, the ‘super PAC' supporting Senator Ted Cruz, after a legal review. The ad, titled 'Sanctuary,' was a version of an ad the group ran in Iowa, criticizing Marco Rubio for his record on immigration. … 'We had our legal folks review it, and it was decided that this needed to be pulled and substituted,' Randy Ingram, the general manager of WBTW in Myrtle Beach, S.C., said, although he couldn't recall the specifics of the legal team's decision. He said other stations in the Media General umbrella, which includes WCBD in Charleston and WSPA in Greenville/Spartanburg, also pulled the ad. The decision was made on Friday, and the ad was pulled from rotation on Saturday." (The New York Times, 2/15/16)

AFTERBURNER: HUMILITY

POWERFUL NEW RUBIO AD: 'LIFE'

To Marco Rubio, the issue of life goes beyond the political debate. Marco has always sided with life. He will continue to fight to provide a voice for the voiceless as POTUS.

.@EWErickson: Marco Rubio Has an Awesome New Pro-Life Ad https://t.co/HifwtP4aVc #IAcaucus #Rubiowa #NHpolitics #fitn #TeamMarco

— TNCC (@TheNewCC) January 17, 2016

Marco Rubio: Right to Life of Unborn “is a Fundamental Right Given to Us by Our Creator” https://t.co/3168Mrilw6 pic.twitter.com/FDrwpmHFLO

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) January 17, 2016

YESTERDAY'S HEADLINES TODAY - VOL. 695

Founders' Freedoms

Standing Up to the Ruling Class

The Value-Driven Conservatism of July 4th

Justice Scalia Warns that SCOTUS Majority Worse than the 1776 Brits

Ted Cruz Is Right to Call for Retention Elections for the Supreme Court

1776-2015: Is Our Revolution Dead?

A Joyless, Unhappy Independence Day on the Left

Ronald Reagan's 1986 Independence Day Address

Christians Don't Owe Gays That Particular Kind of Apology

Loot For Liberals Week at College Insurrection

INDEPENDENCE DAY: OLD INK, ETERNAL IDEALS

Following the announcement of the Declaration on July 4, 1776 and the eventual parchment version being signed on August 2, 1776, the document itself was neglected after the revolution.  Even early celebrations of Independence Day ignored the original statement of that independence.  It was the act that was thought important, not the text.

The Declaration became important again after the founding of political parties.  Once that happened, Jefferson's supporters used the fact that he wrote it to their political advantage.  This created heated back and forth over the document's authorship itself and eventually resulted in it being more prominently thought of in terms of importance of the text.  Even then, however, it wasn't until the 1850s that the document itself became important for more than historical reasons.

Once the abolitionist movement gained prominence in the early 1850s the "all men are created equal…" concept embedded in the Declaration became useful in the struggle to end slavery in the United States.

This usage of the text was taken up by Abraham Lincoln in 1854.  He felt that the Founding Fathers expected that slavery would be a dying institution in the new United States.   Lincoln also felt that the Declaration of Independence was one of the founding documents of the nation and not just a simple statement declaring secession from Britain.  He used this view frequently in his arguments against slavery:

"Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a 'sacred right of self-government.' … Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. … Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. … If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving."

Lincoln's view that the Declaration was one of the founding documents in terms of defining the nation eventually became the nation's view, even though it was not predominately so before him.  This was an extremely important development in America's history in terms of interpreting the Constitution.

You can read more about the history of the document itself here. 

AFTERBURNER: BE PREPARED

BALTIMORE MOM WHUPS SON... WAS SHE WRONG?

A Baltimore mom is being celebrated and criticized for aggressively beating her son during the Baltimore riots. Was she wrong to do so? Find out.

TRIFECTA: GREEN ACRES! BACK TO THE COUNTRY...

INSTAVISION: CONSERVATIVE INSURGENCY

After impressive showings in recent elections, just where is the GOP going? Kurt Schlichter, author of Conservative Insurgency, joins Glenn Reynolds to discuss why the GOP's fight hasn't even started yet.

MAYBE EARLY POLLS ARE TELLING US SOMETHING

Byron York shares some insight on the value of early polling in a presidential election cycle:

It's a commonplace to say the 2016 Republican presidential race is at such an early stage that polls are of no value. But they reflect the state of the race today - not on election day, but today - and that alone has some value. And they might at least suggest where things will be 10 months from now.

Look at the last election cycle. The top three GOP candidates in the RealClearPolitics average of polls in late March 2011 - Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul - were the top three men in the poll average at the beginning of 2012, when caucus and primary voting got under way. And they were the last three men standing, sort of, in the same order, in the last RCP average in April 2012.

Of course there were a huge number of twists and turns along the way. But in retrospect, the polls in 2011 told us something. The winner came from the top three a year earlier.

Today, the RCP average shows an exact tie at the top of the GOP race: Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, both with 16.6 percent, with Ben Carson following at 10.6 percent. Of course Carson is widely viewed in the Republican establishment as having no chance, and there are others outside the top three, like Marco Rubio, who are seen as real contenders.

But with Bush and Walker the other two of the top three, would anyone bet a lot of money that the ultimate winner won't come from the top group once again? Sometimes it makes sense to look at early polls.

And don't forget to check out Our American Revival!

WALKER WINS...AGAIN!

Surprise: SCOTUS upholds Wisconsin voter-ID law

Or maybe not such a surprise after all. The path to today's Supreme Court decision to refuse an appeal by the ACLU against Wisconsin's voter-ID law has been strewn with appellate decisions that supported its implementation, although a last-minute stay by SCOTUS kept it out of play for the midterms. The law will fully take effect for the 2016 election, which may complicate efforts by Democrats to keep the state blue.

The SCOTUS stay in October had more to do with the timing of the law, thanks to the scheduling of the challenges through the courts. Regardless, the election still went in favor of Scott Walker and the GOP, preventing Democrats from repealing the voter-ID provision before it could come into effect.

This will put a huge dent in the Obama administration's efforts to squelch voter-ID laws in other states. In order to grant certiorari, the ACLU would have needed four justices to vote to add it to the docket. The fact that they couldn't even move the liberal wing to unite against a voter-ID law shows that the justices consider the issue settled.

Requirements for identification at polling stations are legitimate, in the eyes of the court, as long as enough options for no-cost qualifying ID exist to keep the poor from being disenfranchised.

The dismissal of this challenge to the law will also help boost Walker's efforts outside of Wisconsin. He's known for reforming the public-employee unions, balancing the budget, and most recently for signing Right to Work legislation even if he advised the Republican-controlled legislature to move more slowly on the latter.

Some forget that Walker backed the voter-ID legislation as part of his reform package that got him elected in 2010, and then reconfirmed in 2012 and re-elected again in 2014. It gives Walker an argument to position himself as the reformer who has a real track record of conservative change in a purple state, change that could turn the state red for good.

As Breitbart's John Nolte points out:

Despite relentless lies-of-omission from our dishonest race-baiting media, voter ID laws are the rare 80/20 issue in America. By wide margins, Democrats and Republicans embrace laws requiring voters show a valid, state-issued ID in order to cast a vote. Even 51% of black voters support voter ID, compared to just 46% who disagree.

The media always casts the voter ID debate as a racial issue - conservatives attempting to keep black people away from the polls.  The American people, including a majority of blacks, have not been swayed by the media's propaganda.

Voters instinctually understand that this is an issue of voter integrity, especially in a country so mismanaged by the federal government we currently have 6.5 million active Social Security numbers for people aged 112...

Wisconsin's reforming governor has done it again:

Who wins here?

In addition to voters who now can have more trust in the integrity of the system, the winner is Scott Walker, who once again has defeated the opposition against all odds.

Big, big victory for Walker. This guy gets things done. RT @SykesCharlie BREAKING: US Supreme Court lets Wisconsin voter ID law stand
— John Nolte (@NolteNC) March 23, 2015

“@SykesCharlie: BREAKING: US Supreme Court lets Wisconsin voter ID law stand” Woo hoo! Walker wins again!!
— CarolK (@FlyoverRed) March 23, 2015

Scott walker can campaign on actual achievements, unlike O. RT @SykesCharlie US Supreme Court lets Wisconsin voter ID law stand @NolteNC
— Jalen (@GOPMommy) March 23, 2015

Voter ID intact. Easy to vote, hard to cheat. #wiright #SCOTUS
— Matt Walker (@Walkermatt16) March 23, 2015

KLAVAN & WHITTLE: THE TRUTH ABOUT PEACE

Make love, not war! Imagine peace!!! P-E-A-C-E! Yip yip yip yip yipppeeeee!!! -- Check out Bill Whittle and Andrew Klavan's formula for world peace!

RED STATE, RED CARPET: THE RONNIE AWARDS

Watch the first ever conservative award show. It's the anti-Oscars, The Ronnies! People like Dinesh D'Souza have gotten excluded from The Oscars, so we right that wrong.

WHAT HAPPENED TO RONALD REAGAN'S HOLLYWOOD?

The Hollywood red carpets were once home to Ronald Reagan and John Wayne, and they're now the land of Matt Damon & Michael Moore. How did we wind up here?

REAGAN FLASHBACK, 1964: A TIME FOR CHOOSING

Nancy and Ronald Reagan in 1964, the year he delivered "The Speech"

In honor of President Ronald Reagan's 104th birthday, here is the entire televised speech he gave on October 27, 1964 on behalf of the Goldwater campaign.  It was titled "A Time For Choosing" and now remembered simply as "The Speech."  The name of the program was "A Rendezvous With Destiny."  The speech raised $1 million for Goldwater's campaign and is considered the event that launched Reagan's political career.

Among other things, it is remarkable (and frightening) how eerily similar the problems he addressed on that day are to the problems we face on this day, except that today they are even more acute.  And the rhetoric of the liberals is also quite familiar to us.  During the speech, Reagan uttered this famous quote:

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

You can read the complete transcript of the speech here.  I would strongly suggest that you take the time to listen to the entire speech and also read the transcript.  It is a magnificent example of why Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator" and it needs to be read as well as heard.  Here is an excerpt:

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

AFTERBURNER: WHAT LIBERTY LOOKS LIKE

KLAVAN & WHITTLE: THE WALKING DEAD

PJTV Member Maxsmodels asks whether TV shows like "The Walking Dead" are promoting gun rights and the Second Amendment. Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle think so. Hear why, as they discuss the popular AMC television program about a global zombie apocalypse. Have television writers and producers realized there is little money in promoting their own values? Are we about to witness a new found respect in Hollywood for the Bill of Rights and conservative viewpoints? Hear the answers.

PJTV'S THE RUNDOWN: DECEMBER 1, 2014

What kind of gift would you give to your conservative friends or family members? Check out The Rundown's Holiday Gift Guide for Conservatives!