In Spanish Interview, Marco Rubio Says It’s ‘Important Not To Cancel’ Obama’s Executive Amnesty By Chuck Ross

Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio offered a measure of support for President Obama’s first executive amnesty program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, during a recent interview he conducted in Spanish this week with Univision’s Jorge Ramos.

Rubio’s comments mark a reversal of sorts from criticism he offered of DACA last year, and they also put him at odds with the conservative Republican base, which he will need in his corner if he hopes to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

“But DACA, I think it’s important not to cancel it from one moment to the next because you already have people benefiting from it.” Rubio told Ramos in the interview, which was posted online and translated by Grabien.

Rubio did say that he believes DACA, which Obama announced in 2012 and granted amnesty to so-called DREAMers, should end, but only after immigration reform is passed.

Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio offered a measure of support for President Obama’s first executive amnesty program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, during a recent interview he conducted in Spanish this week with Univision’s Jorge Ramos.

Rubio’s comments mark a reversal of sorts from criticism he offered of DACA last year, and they also put him at odds with the conservative Republican base, which he will need in his corner if he hopes to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

“But DACA, I think it’s important not to cancel it from one moment to the next because you already have people benefiting from it.” Rubio told Ramos in the interview, which was posted online and translated by Grabien.

Rubio did say that he believes DACA, which Obama announced in 2012 and granted amnesty to so-called DREAMers, should end, but only after immigration reform is passed.

Posted: April 18, 2015
Posted in History, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Legendary Children’s Author Celebrates Her 100th Birthday In The Best Way Possible

In honor of Beverly Cleary’s 100th birthday in 2016, the beloved children’s author re-released three of her most beloved books. The celebration doesn’t stop there. Three of her famous admirers have added their own special touches to the volumes as the world celebrates the author’s influence on children’s literature.

Beverly Cleary - 1971 / Via Washington State Archives

Beverly Cleary – 1971 / Via Washington State Archives

New Forewords

Actress Amy Poehler joins children’s authors Judy Blume and Kate DiCamillo as writers of new forewords for the newly released editions. Poehler penned the front section of “Ramona Quimby, Age 8;” DiCamillo wrote the opening essay for “The Mouse and the Motorcycle;” and fellow author, Blume, paid tribute to the person who inspired her to become an author in “Henry Huggins.”

Each of these three masterpieces came out as new editions in late January 2016. Cleary’s memoir “A Girl From Yamhill” also hit stores at that time. Blume, who was just starting her own writing career the first time she read Cleary’s work, relates that her own famous characters may never have been created without Cleary’s influence.

Amy Poehler / Via David Shankbone

Amy Poehler / Via David Shankbone

Cleary’s Career

Cleary’s first book, “Henry Huggins,” came out in 1950 as a fictionalized memoir of her childhood. The book also incorporated children who would listen to her storytime readings when Cleary worked as an elementary school librarian. In 1955, the children’s author published “Beezus and Ramona,” the first book to feature the Quimby sisters.

Cleary’s career never faltered as her famous characters became bestsellers. Many of the author’s works are classics in children’s literature that kids still read. Due to her effect on children’s literature over the past several decades, Cleary has earned many accolades.

Cleary’s awards include the Newberry Medal in 1984 for “Dear Mr. Henshaw,” a novel about a boy who befriends his favorite author through a series of letters. In 2003, the National Endowment of the Arts awarded the author its National Medal of Art. Other awards note her overall contribution to children’s literature, such as the American Library Association’s Laura Ingalls Wilder Award, the Regina Medal from the Catholic Library Association and the Silver Medallion from the University of Southern Mississippi.

Judy Blume / Via Carl Lender

Judy Blume / Via Carl Lender

Cleary has inspired many contemporary children’s authors, so her legacy lives on in the works of others. The Library Congress named Cleary a Living Legend, perhaps the most prominent honor among her many awards. The author is an international favorite, as her books exist in 14 languages and in 20 countries.

Posted February 5, 2016


Posted in History, My Book Shelf | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Grammar Alert….

Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Why I’m Endorsing Ted Cruz For President By John Hawkins

Conservatives have been hoping that “another Reagan” will come along for decades and we finally have one: Ted Cruz.

Like Reagan, Ted Cruz is not popular with the establishment wing of the Republican Party. In fact, you’ll often hear it said that, “Some people don’t like Ted.” There is truth to that and I would encourage you to judge Ted Cruz by his enemies.

Liberal Democrats fear Ted Cruz because they know he’s a strong, principled conservative that can’t be browbeaten, pushed around or bought off. While many other Republicans insisted that we wave the white flag to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, again and again, it was Ted Cruz who called on conservatives to stand up for what they believe in instead of buckling at the knees.

Republicans who love open borders and amnesty don’t like Ted Cruz much either because he’s been one of their strongest foes in the Senate. Back in 2013, when Donald Trump was calling for amnesty and Marco Rubio was pushing a bill that would have altered the demographics of our country in a way that would have permanently marginalized conservatives going forward, Ted Cruz was on the right side of the fight.

Listen to what Jeff Sessions, the staunchest opponent of amnesty and open borders in the Senate, had to say about the battle over the Gang-of-8 amnesty bill.

“In 2013 they spent a billion and a half dollars to promote this legislation, the political consultants, they had pollsters hired to spin the numbers, they had special interest groups, they met for months, the gang of eight, they were determined, it was a near on thing, it was a worse bill than the 2007 bill. It gave amnesty first…It was that close to being passed… and I think I can say this with integrity. Without the vigorous opposition of Ted Cruz, this bill likely would have passed.”

Additionally, establishment Republicans have never loved Ted Cruz. That’s because Cruz’s willingness to fight the Democrats puts a spotlight on their cowardice, the strength of his connection with conservatives reveals how out of touch they are and his insistence that Republicans keep their campaign promises highlights how seldom they actually keep their word. The fact that John Boehner has lost his job and that so many people are blaming the GOP leadership in Congress for the seething anger of Republican voters this year reveals the biggest reason the establishment Republicans hate Cruz: They were wrong and he was right.

It’s these same establishment types who have used their favorite argument against a candidate who’s obviously preferable to the ones they want, “He can’t win the general election.”

That is just what they said when Pat Toomey took on Arlen Specter, Marco Rubio took on Charlie Crist and Rand Paul took on Trey Grayson. In every one of those races, the establishment was wrong and it’s wrong about Cruz as well.

Cruz is the best debater in the field, he’s the ONLY candidate who could electrify the vast majority of conservatives in the race, he’d be the first Hispanic President in American history, he has a well-organized, data-driven campaign, he’s one of the best fund raisers running and he’s already beating the much better known Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls.

That’s important because it doesn’t matter what you believe if you can’t win a general election. However, as conservatives who have been burned by empty promises over and over again have also learned to their dismay, it doesn’t matter if a candidate says all the right things if he’s not willing to fight for them.

Ted Cruz ran on conservative issues like building a fence on our border when he was elected, he has lived up to his promises in the Senate and he has run a consistently conservative campaign. Cruz is also not temperamental and you don’t ever have to wonder what he REALLY thinks about issues like abortion or health care. Perhaps even more importantly, Cruz has proven that he’s a fighter who’s not scared to go toe-to-toe with anybody from the Republican establishment to Obama, to the mainstream media.

Cruz’s consistent conservatism mixed with his willingness to fight is why he’s the ONLY CANDIDATE RUNNING who can absolutely be counted on to get rid of Obama’s executive orders, kill Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood and build a fence on the border.

At the end of the day, none of us can control who gets elected. We can only do the best we can and let the chips fall where they may. So, I don’t have any illusions about whether one more or less conservative columnist speaking out for Ted Cruz is going to make a big difference. However, what I will say is that Ted Cruz is the first grassroots-friendly conservative to be within striking distance of becoming the GOP nominee since Reagan. Opportunities like this don’t come along very often and if conservatives let this one pass, we may never again have a chance to put a conservative champion like Cruz in the White House.


John Hawkins runs Right Wing News and Linkiest. You can see more of John Hawkins on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, G+,You Tube, and at PJ Media.

Posted: January 30, 2016
Posted in Constitution Corner, Current Events, History | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bible Project: Exodus Part 1

Posted in Devotional, History | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Plotline: Gun By Peter Leavell

peter leavell


In case you’ve been living in another galaxy, it’s time to catch you up to speed. Guns are a hot topic in the United States.

With modern day controversies, why not just take them out of your novel altogether?
We’re novelists! We have a long heritage of nonconformity in regards to modern political movements.

Political and cultural wrangling aside, what can guns do for your novel?


Give strength to the weak. The smallest are physically equal to the largest if guns are involved. Muscles don’t mean much here.

Move the plotline along quickly. Remember Raiders of the Lost Ark? Yeah. Indiana Jones brought the sword-wielding villain down pretty fast.

Add a character. Sometimes characters love their weapons so much, the gun takes on its own personality. James Bond’s Walther PPK is a great example.

Tension. Who can forget The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly’s stellar scene at the end?

Accessorize the characters. A holster slung low on the gunman’s hip. An AK-47 strap draped over a shoulder. Or the best…Get Smart’s 99 and her array of guns.


Make a bad guy even worse. Just like a gun making a weak character strong and moving the plot line along quickly, one pull of the trigger can make a bad guy even worse. And fast.

So, in todays political tempest, should you use guns in your novels? If the plotline calls for it, yep. If you want to be counter-culture, yep. And if you like guns, of course.

And if you simply cannot induce yourself to include guns, if they’re so distasteful you cannot even type the words Colt .45, then by all means, leave the guns out.

Go ahead and have two cowboys sword fight.
(For two cowboys sword fighting, read my novel, West for the Black Hills!)
Peter Leavell is an award winning historical fiction author. He and his family research together, creating magnificent adventures. Catch up with him on his website at, or friend him on Facebook:
Peter R. Leavell.
January 11, 2016
Posted in Writing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Establishment’s Irrational Fear of Ted Cruz By David Limbaugh

Some time ago I said that many establishment Republicans dislike Ted Cruz so much that they would even back their nemesis, Donald Trump, if necessary to keep Cruz from winning. This is one time I wish I had been wrong.

The establishment has long held Cruz in contempt but didn’t believe he had any realistic chance of securing the GOP nomination. Now, with his campaign success, he’s scaring their pants off. Former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole has issued apocalyptic warnings against nominating Cruz, and I’ve just received an email that Sen. Orrin Hatch prefers Trump over Cruz as well.

Earlier this week, it was New York Times pretend-conservative columnist David Brooks who suggested a Republican conspiracy against Cruz and Trump in favor of any other GOP candidate. “Very few presidents are so terrible,” he wrote, “that they genuinely endanger their own nation, but Trump and Cruz would go there and beyond.” Setting aside this mindless conflation of Cruz and Trump, do you believe we should be taking advice about potentially bad presidents from a guy who drooled over candidate Barack Obama because of his trousers?

More and more insiders fear Cruz far more than Trump. Trump drives the establishment batty by ginning up his supporters against them and for his current hardline stance on immigration, but they have to know it hasn’t been that long since Trump espoused a number of liberal positions and financially supported establishment figureheads in each party. As hard-nosed and independent as he seems, his track record reveals he is much more malleable and they’d have a better chance to influence him than Cruz.

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has been a thorn in the establishment’s side since he came on the scene. Insiders are astounded that he has actually refused to abandon his campaign promises and his commitment to Reagan conservatism, despite overwhelming pressure and derision from the party and its power brokers.

They have concluded that Cruz must be driven by egomania and not principle. Who but a stubborn, opportunistic loner could resist the temptation to rub elbows with the power brokers once elected? Only oddballs honor their constituents and grassroots conservative causes above those of the ruling class. Only charlatans continue to articulate conservative ideas with passionate optimism and idealism once in office. Only zealots evince an abiding dedication to Reagan conservative principles beyond what’s necessary to get them elected. Only grandstanders would truly stand up to President Obama’s reckless budget demands instead of throwing in the towel of surrender before the fight has even begun.

Why is it automatically presumed that Obama will win every game of chicken he insists on playing with Republicans? Why can’t our side ever be confident enough in its own ideas and of the American people — as Ted Cruz is — to believe the people will back us if we call Obama’s bluff and articulate our case to them? The establishment’s rationale for caving has always been that Republicans, being the party of less government, can never win over the public in a shutdown showdown. They think that Cruz knows this too, but puts on a grandiose but futile show to play to the base and advance his political ambitions. Oh ye of little faith — little faith, that is, in the conservative ideas you maintain you embrace. If only the establishment would join Cruz in promoting the principles they say they share, just as Democrats always support an uncompromising and extremist Obama, there’s no telling what progress we could have made in thwarting some of Obama’s agenda.

As I see it, there are two major differences between Republican supporters and opponents of Cruz. One is that his supporters are more consistently conservative on every category of issues. The fight, in other words, is not just about strategy, as the establishment insists, but also involves policy.

The second is that Cruz’s supporters believe he is a man of integrity. Many of his detractors contend he is a phony, but I think their real fear is that he is not. He will not change his positions for expedience — though many are working overtime to convince us otherwise.

The establishment, then, either believes or wants to fool us into believing that it opposes Cruz because he is a poseur, a saboteur of good government — a man who impedes the cause of conservatism by his unwavering commitment to it. Only by compromise and pragmatism, they argue, can we really advance conservative principles.

The truth, however, is that they are not as committed to conservative principles as they say they are and don’t regard the current problems confronting our nation with the same degree of urgency as mainstream conservatives. They also place a high value on process — on bipartisanship and collegiality for their own sake — even over advancing a conservative agenda. Not long ago I read that one establishment icon said he didn’t think a Hillary presidency would be that bad. Seriously?

We finally have a candidate who is committed to conservative principles across the board, a man who reveres the Constitution and America, as founded, who acutely understands the destruction President Obama has wrought, and who we can rely on to fulfill his promise to do everything in his power, if elected, to reverse this disastrous course and restore us on a path to recovery.

If the establishment would quit hyperventilating over Ted Cruz and get behind him they could do more than anything else to advance the cause they profess to believe in.

David Limbaugh is a columnist, author and attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Mo.
Posted in Constitution Corner, Current Events | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment