Mediaboss Marketing

CRUZ: Mark, I'm pretty sure that's the first time we've ever walked out to dance music. (LAUGHTER)

LEVIN: Well, I did think about holding hands, but...

(LAUGHTER)

... I didn't think that would come off right.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, it is my honor to be here with Senator Cruz. We're going to have a short discussion about the Constitution. How many of you support the Constitution?

(APPLAUSE)

So we're not at the DNC event here, that's obvious.

(LAUGHTER)

Senator Cruz...

CRUZ: I think the smell would be somewhat different.

LEVIN: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

He means pot, of course.

(LAUGHTER)

Study ambiguity or something, right?

(LAUGHTER)

You're one of the leading constitutionalists, not just in the Senate, but in the country. And one of the problems we have in this country today is so much of what we do is not within the constitutional construct. You have introduced an amendment to the Constitution to place term limits on members of Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

So tell us why you did it and tell us about your amendment.

CRUZ: Well, Mark, I think it's one of the first and biggest steps we can take to actually drain the swamp.

(APPLAUSE)

You look across this country people are fed up with Washington. This election was the American people saying, enough already with the corruption in Washington and it's both parties. Its Democrats and Republicans who have been here too long, who've become captured by this city and -- and if you look at -- President Trump campaigned on draining the swamp, on term limits.

You look at congressional leaders. We've got majorities in both Houses, I think we ought to demonstrate that we heard the voters, bring up term limits, pass it, and send it to the states for ratification. And what's amazing is the support for this, it cuts across in this polarized time, you get super majorities of Republicans, or Democrats, of Independents who all say, throw the bums out and we ought to listen.

(APPLAUSE)

LEVIN: Now, it takes time to get these sorts of things passed, because you've got to develop support among the American people and so forth. So, what should the people in this room and across the country do? Because obviously you have an entrenched ruling class, and they're not going to say yeah, let me vote myself out.

So, what do we do? We put pressure on them? How should we handle this?

CRUZ: Look, hold us accountable. There is an incredible power the men and women in this room, the men and women of CPAC, the grassroots have the ability to get people's attention, to hold our elected officials accountable -- hold every one of us accountable.

The message that I am conveying to President Trump, to the Cabinet, to leaders in both Houses is real simple. Let's do what we promised. Let's deliver on the promises and if we do that, we'll win at the ballot box and if we don't, the people will hold us accountable for that too.

LEVIN: Let me ask you about the courts. We saw what the 9th Circuit did, or a panel of the 9th circuit on an executive order, that once the executive order was modified, really it was even a controversial executive order from a constitutional point of view, and then you have three judges who did what they did. The other day we had the 4th Circuit basically tear the guts out of the Second Amendment...

CRUZ: Yup.

LEVIN: ... reject the Heller decision in the Supreme Court. So the Gorsuch nomination's important. How do we get our hands around all this?

CRUZ: Well, you're right. You look at judicial activism, and those are two great examples, the 9th Circuit and the 4th Circuit decision in recent weeks. If you look at the 9th Circuit, it's based in California, its long been the most liberal Court of Appeals in the country.

If you look at the decision of the 9th Circuit and the decision of the California District Court -- actually the Washington District Court that struck down, that enjoined the president's order, both decisions are utterly lawless. You know, the reason the Constitution gives judges life tenure is so they can be independent of political pressures and follow the law.

I've read the District Court decision, I've read the Court of Appeals decision, they don't even cite the controlling federal law. By statute, Congress has given the president the authority to suspend immigration -- any class of immigration if he deems it in the national interest. Now, any judge that was actually being a judge would begin with a statue, would look to the precedence, would interpret it -- they don't even mention the statute. They just say, we don't like this policy and there engaged in legislation. You take the 4th Circuit decision, upholding Maryland's laws on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The 4th Circuit used to the most conservative court in the country. I started my career as a law clerk of the 4th Circuit, and it was 20 years ago, the 4th Circuit was tremendous -- it was dedicated to protecting our constitutional rights.

The 4th Circuit now, they invented this new test for the Second Amendment, and here's what their test said. "The Second Amendment doesn't protect a weapon if it would be useful in a military context."

(LAUGHTER)

This test isn't just sort of questionable, it isn't just a little bit out there, it is nuts.

(APPLAUSE)

The Second Amendment was designed explicitly to protect weapons that would be useful in a military context.

(APPLAUSE)

If we were living back in 1789, your musket would be really useful in a military conflict. If you were called up to service, they said bring your musket. And indeed, the First Congress passed a law. You want to know the first gun control law in America? First Congress passed a law mandating that all able-bodied men must own a musket.

(APPLAUSE)

Under the...

LEVIN: That's an individual mandate we can live with.

CRUZ: There you go.

That's -- under the 4th Circuit's test, they say well gosh, if it would be useful in a military context. In the Second Amendment, it's not about hunting, it's not about target shooting, it's about protecting your home and your family and your life.

(APPLAUSE)

So under the 4th Circuit's test, the only things that are protected are things that are not useful in a military context. So apparently, the Second Amendment protects feather dusters.

(LAUGHTER)

You have a right to have a feather duster. If anyone breaks in, you can make sure they're really clean as they're robbing your house.

(LAUGHTER)

This is lawless. And it's why after eight years of Obama, there are few, if anything, more important than putting principled constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. The Gorsuch nomination is important. It matters. And mark my words, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed.

(APPLAUSE)

Let's -- let's talk about separation of powers. We have this massive administrative state, this fourth branch of government within the executive branch. The executive branch does more legislating than the legislative branch. And they're pushing out 3,000, 4,000 laws, regulations every year.

Isn't there a law that Congress passed itself, the REINS Act, that empowers itself to do something about this? Well, that should be one of the singular priorities of this new Congress and of this new administration, is reining in the out of control regulatory state.

The REINS Act would require Congress to approve any regulation that would have an impact of greater than $100 million on the economy. Now, you want to talk about a basic common sense step. If the federal government is going to cost $100 million or more of your jobs going away, at a minimum the people who are elected by the people ought to have to vote and say, yes, I support taking away your job; or no, I don't support taking away your job. (APPLAUSE)

And part of the regulatory state -- you know, what the framers understood was accountability. I mean, the Constitution is brilliant for accountability; for posing factions against each other, to fight amongst themselves in government, which protects our liberty. But also in ensuring that decision-making is made by those who the people can hold accountable.

The regulatory state now lets politicians wipe their hands and say, hey, it's not my fault. It just came from these bureaucrats who work for nobody and are accountable to nobody.

And I will say, one of the things that I have encouraged President Trump to do, and I'm optimistic about this, is to take on directly the regulatory state; to take it on, to fire bureaucrats.

(APPLAUSE)

And what I've encouraged President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- and by the way, let me just repeat that again: Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

(APPLAUSE)

I just like making Chuck Schumer twitch.

(LAUGHTER)

But what I have urged them to do is put together a sophisticated, serious legal strategy to take on the regulatory state. Now, you'll be sued. You'll end up in the Ninth Circuit. You'll end up with activist judges trying to protect the regulatory state. But if you look at executive power -- we saw eight years of Obama. And what Obama did wrong with executive power is he tried to change the law. He tried to ignore the law. And under the Constitution, Article I, all legislative authority is vested in Congress.

CRUZ: And the president doesn't have the authority to change the law or ignore the law, and that's what Obama tried to do. But under Article II, all executive power is vested in one president of the United States. The regulatory state is Congress's efforts to undermine the president's authority. And my hope is we will see a president use that constitutional authority to rein in the uncontrollable, unelected bureaucrats and to rescind regulations.

I hope we see the Waters of the United States rule rescinded.

(APPLAUSE)

And reining in the regulatory state would have a massive impact on economic freedom going forward.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me -- impeachment. Impeachment is a constitutional function. Yes, the left keeps talking about impeachment. I mean, they were talking about impeachment before the inauguration.

(LAUGHTER)

And, you know, I think impeaching Obama in January probably would have been a mistake.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

So would retroactive impeachment be unconstitutional?

(LAUGHTER)

I don't know, but it would be fun.

(LAUGHTER)

Let me ask you this question. Do the Democrats understand they need to control the House of Representatives to impeach somebody?

(LAUGHTER)

You know...

(LAUGHTER) ... the Democrats right now are living in an alternative universe.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

The week after the election, I was back at the Capitol. I was in an elevator at the Capitol with a well-known liberal Democrat, who was simply staring ahead in this complete stupor.

(LAUGHTER)

And that hasn't changed.

(LAUGHTER)

They all look like that. They are in denial. And they're angry.

I mean, you and I were talking backstage before this. The anger on the left -- I've never seen anything like it. I mean, they're right now opposing everything. Democrats in the Senate are filibustering absolutely everything. This is the longest we've been. The Cabinet is still not confirmed. This is the longest we've been since George Washington without confirming a Cabinet.

They're filibustering everything. We voted a couple of weeks ago on approving the journal. Now, Mark, I'm going to confess, I have idea what the hell that is.

(LAUGHTER)

I've never -- I voted yes. I hope yes was the right vote.

(LAUGHTER)

Approving the journal is the most mundane procedural step. It is always done by unanimous consent. I didn't know we did that until they objected to it and said, no, you've got to have a full Senate vote; everyone come down to approve the journal.

What that means if this continues, and from the left, their base -- there's a technical term for their base -- Moscow.

(LAUGHTER)

I was going a different direction, which was bat-crap crazy.

See original here:
Read Ted Cruz's Remarks on 'Bat-Crap Crazy' Liberals - TIME

It's that time of year again when everyone connected with politics starts looking at what could be, or more precisely, what should be in the federal budget.

It's the Ottawa equivalent of sharing home remedies for the common cold. There's no shortage of advice on the best way to treat whatever ails the Canadian economy.

More spending on infrastructure! Drop the proposed price on carbon! Impose new or more user fees! Raise the minimum wage! Incentives for key industries!

This year isno different. The chatter's underway even though Finance Minister Bill Morneau hasn't confirmed when he plans to table his second effort at directing the country's fiscal policies. It could be as early as the first week of March;it could just as easily be the end of the month.

The Conservatives certainly aren't waiting for the date to be announced. This week, interim Leader Rona Ambrose led the Official Opposition's efforts to argue the Liberals, far from helping the middle class as promised in the 2015 campaign, are actually hurting them.

"Canadians are paying more and getting less," she said during question period Wednesday. "The Liberals are hiking taxes and adding debt. And for what? Canadians were promised a stronger economy and better jobs, but a lot of the jobs created are not better. Only one in five jobs created have been full time."

Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose criticizes the government's job-creation record during question period. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The prime minister, not surprisingly, insisted everything his government does is with the best interests of the middle class in mind.

"We lowered taxes on the middle class by raising them on the wealthiest one per cent," Justin Trudeau said. "We brought in the Canadian child benefit that gives more money to nine out of 10 Canadian families, which will help them with the costs of groceries, school supplies and raising their kids."

We'll see more of these kinds of exchanges in the days ahead as each party jockeys for public attention. The Conservatives believe the Liberals will raise taxes on capital gains, 50 per cent of which must currentlybe included in an individual's taxable income. The NDP still wants to close a loophole that allows corporate executives to avoid taxes on stock options.

The Liberals, by virtue of being in government, keep pointing to what they've already done.

But beyond the political posturing are some harsh fiscal realities, particularly the fact the country's finances are in worse shape now than even a few months ago.

The Finance Department released a forecast before Christmas that conceded the government, as of now, will run deficits until sometime mid-century.

Many economistsbelieve the election of Donald Trump, with his "America First" agenda, could have an impact on our balance of trade with the United States.

The potential impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's 'America First' approach is a concern for policy-makers in Canada. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

There are also concerns that if Trump follows through on his stated plans to slash corporate tax rates it could draw future investments away from Canadaand make this country less competitive vis-a-vis U.S. companies.

Kevin Page, a former parliamentary budget officer who heads the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, wrote this week that the Trudeau Liberals need a "policy reset" to addressthe deteriorating fiscal situation.

"Some of this deterioration comes from the moribund economic environment. Some of this deterioration is a policy choice a strategy to boost a sagging economy with the nation's fiscal credit card. Either way, program spending and debt are way up."

Kevin Page, a former parliamentary budget officer who heads the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, says the government needs a 'fiscal policy reset.'

The question facing Morneau is how to respond. He could follow through, as Page suggests, with a strategy to boost innovation and skills a key recommendation put forth last month by the finance minister's own economic advisory council.

Others believe the government has to look at ways to increase revenues.

One possible route is to reduce what's known as tax expenditures or tax credits by, for example, taxing health and dental benefits paid by employers or removing the tax credit given to Canadians over the age of 65.

Trudeau publicly ruled out taxing health and dental benefits.

But if his government is indeed looking for new sources of revenue, there's no easy target, says Janice MacKinnon, a former provincial finance minister who teaches public policy at the University of Saskatchewan.

"I think this is the most politically dangerous ground that they've been on," she says in this week's edition of The House podcast.

"For one, it's hard to remove tax credits without hitting the middle class whose taxes you promised to reduce."

The same concern exists with increasing the percentage of capital gains that are taxable on, forexample, the sale of shares people hold in publicly traded companies.

MacKinnon says the best option may be to do very little in this budget beyond following through on the innovation agenda and waiting for the infrastructure money announced in last year's budget to finally flow, with all the jobs that spending will create.

For his part, the prime minister doesn't appear to be willing to wait. In a speech he gave last weekend to a black-tie audience in Hamburg, Germany, Trudeau re-stated his vision of an activist agenda.

Trudeau delivers a speech at the St. Matthew's Day banquet in Hamburg, Germany, last week. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Some of the more interesting snippets have been dissected: that taxpayers aren't seeing the rewards of big corporate profits through more full-time jobs and higher wages, and that governments too often seem to be serving special interests instead of those of the ordinary citizen.

"Whether you're a business or a government, it's time to realize that this anger and anxiety we see washing over the world is coming from a very real place," he said. "And it's not going away."

It's an interesting diagnosis. Canadians will have to wait for the budget to see what remedy Trudeau's Liberals have in mind to treat what ails the Canadian economy.

Read the rest here:
Plenty of budget remedies offered as Liberals prepare prescription for ailing economy: Chris Hall - CBC.ca

Many of those showing up at town hall events have never done anything like that in their lives. Photograph: Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AFP/Getty Images

Americans are flooding into town halls across the country. Fearful that their country is being torn apart, they are turning out to protest their representatives in record numbers. Clearly, the furious crowds have gotten under Donald Trumps skin. In a sneering tweet, the president dismissed the so-called angry crowds at town hall events as planned by liberal activists. Well take that as a compliment.

More than two dozen progressive activist groups are using ResistanceRecess.com, a site posted just last week by MoveOn.org, to search among more than 500 local congressional events around the country. Anyone can RSVP for an event and get a reminder email. So yes, thats evidence of planning apparently more planning than goes into a typical executive order issued by this White House.

But heres the thing: the crowds are unmistakably real, and the anger runs deep.

Many of those showing up at town hall events have never done anything like that in their lives. Just like the participants in the millions-strong Womens March and the spontaneous airport protests, the people filling these town hall events are acting with moral urgency and with a deeply responsible sense of civic duty. Now its up to members of Congress to decide how to respond.

They can listen to their constituents, do their jobs and pull the country back from the precipice that Trump seems so determined to drive it off of. Or they can fail to heed the voices of their own voters and face the consequences at the ballot box.

But one things for sure: even after Congress returns from recess, the resistance isnt going anywhere. We voters are watching.

The intensity at the town halls is so high that more than 200 elected officials have reportedly abandoned public forums in February entirely. But theyre in for the worst of it. Where politicians are cowering in fear of their constituents, citizens are forging ahead with town hall events of their own with an empty seat at the front reserved for their member of Congress.

If their invited representatives dont show up, the absence will speak volumes to the local news cameras and Facebook Live feeds streaming from their constituents mobile phones. And to make sure nobody forgets that their officials have gone AWOL, theyre buying local newspaper ads calling them out and plastering milk cartons with MISSING stickers in their local supermarkets.

Resistance Recess is blowing the Republicans momentum out to sea. But its not just Republicans facing energized crowds. In blue states and congressional districts, citizens are thronging to public events as well, demanding full-throated, no-fear resistance from Democratic lawmakers.

Their message: when fundamental principles, and our very constitution, is at stake, there is no room for compromise. Democrats who get the message and pledge to fight are greeted by cheers. Those who still havent realized that these arent normal times and that their role now is to resist, not appease are engulfed by fierce chanting: Do your job!

What are the thousands of people asking for? Protection of the vital healthcare programs that millions of lives depend on. An immediate, public, and comprehensive investigation into Trumps ties with Russia. The rejection of Trumps big-business-is-always-right supreme court nominee. Opposition to Trumps racist and xenophobic immigration policies and the travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries.

From Republicans, a willingness to put country before party. From Democrats, the use of every available tool to block Trumps toxic and unconstitutional agenda that would divide our communities, poison our environment and bankrupt the country for the personal benefit of billionaires like the president himself, his cabinet and his corporate-honcho allies.

If Congress doesnt start standing up to Donald Trump, we liberal activists have a lot more planned from now through the 2018 elections and beyond. We are only getting started.

Read more here:
Yes, liberals are planning town hall protests. It's called democracy - The Guardian

Some of the town halls held by other lawmakers have turned raucous, with liberal activists and others pressing GOP lawmakers on dismantling Obamacare, implementing tough new immigration rules and where they stand on other controversial policies emerging from President Donald Trump's administration.

A frustrated Rubio staffer dismissed the empty-chair event as "not a true or constructive dialogue."

"The protesters -- some of whom failed to show up for meetings they scheduled with our staff -- continue to fundraise off of it even though we informed them days ago Senator Rubio will not be there," Rubio spokesman Matt Wolking said. "We have been fully accessible and responsive to constituents, and our staff has already met with dozens of these liberal activists at our offices across Florida. As their manual reveals, their goal is to stage a hostile atmosphere, record themselves booing no matter what is said, and refuse to give up the microphone. That is not a true or constructive dialogue."

One Internet posting by the liberal group publicizing the event, Indivisible Tampa, said: "Citizens of Tampa are organizing a town hall event during the Congressional recess for Sen. Marco Rubio to address urgent concerns regarding health care, national security, and the President's links to Russia. We have invited Sen. Rubio to attend but cannot be certain he will attend"

Another posting said organizers hope to get Rubio to a future town hall.

"While we really wanted our Senator to attend and hope to work with him and his staff in the future to deliver a town hall to Tampa with his attendance - we are very happy to have a town hall where our voices will be heard," the group said in a Facebook post.

The event is planned for 7 p.m. Wednesday at the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 599 in Tampa and will be streamed live by organizers on Facebook.

Rubio is away all week in France and Germany, according to his office.

"Senator Rubio is traveling overseas this week to attend multiple bilateral meetings with heads of state and senior government officials in Germany and France, two countries with upcoming elections who are facing concerns about Russian interference," Rubio's office explained. "As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Appropriations Committee, and Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Rubio is conducting this official oversight trip to discuss the US/EU relationship, NATO operations, counter-ISIS activities, foreign assistance programs, and Russian aggression in Europe."

See more here:
Liberals plan 'empty chair' town hall for Rubio - CNN

Alan Colmes, a top-rated television commentator who, as co-host with conservative Sean Hannity of Hannity & Colmes, became best known as the liberal in the lions den of Fox News, has died at a hospital in Manhattan. He was 66.

His wife, Jocelyn Elise Crowley, said that he died late Feb. 22 or early Feb. 23. The cause was lymphoma.

Mr. Colmes joined the fledging Fox News Channel in 1996 and hosted the political talk show with Hannity for 12 years. It became the channels longest-running prime time program before Mr. Colmess departure from the show in 2008.

Mr. Colmes gamely endured withering criticism from some liberals, who perceived a betrayal in his presence on Fox, which was founded by Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch as a counterbalance to what many conservatives saw as the left-wing bias in the news media.

Some liberals have a problem with me simply because I work at Fox and nothing I do short of storming off the set in a rage will get them to respect that I work there, an interviewer for The Huffington Post, Steve Young, quoted Mr. Colmes as saying.

I feel quite lucky to have the platforms I have on both television and radio, Mr. Colmes continued. Even if everything its detractors say about Fox were true, the most liberal of liberal attitudes would be that one would get credit for being in the lions den. After all I do have the biggest audience of all the liberals.

Alan Samuel Colmes was born on Sept. 24, 1950,and grew up on Long Island, N.Y. His father, an auctioneer, ran jewelry stores with his mother.

Mr. Colmes graduated in 1971 from Hofstra University on Long Island before venturing into radio and then television.

Hannity, who knew Mr. Colmes from his own radio work, joined Fox at its inception and was slated to host a show privately dubbed Hannity & LTBD Liberal to Be Determined. The liberal to be determined turned out to be Mr. Colmes.

Mr. Colmess books included Red, White and Liberal: How Left Is Right & Right Is Wrong (2003) and Thank The Liberals* *For Saving America (And Why You Should) (2012).

Survivors include his wife of 13 years, Jocelyn Elise Crowley of New York City; and a sister.

This obituary is a developing story and will be updated.

Read more here:
Alan Colmes, co-host of 'Hannity & Colmes' and liberal in 'lion's den' of Fox News, dies at 66 - Washington Post