Conservatives Keep Losing Because They’re Reading The Wrong Books

Reading Time: 2 minutes

For the past four years. conservatives have worried more about being right while liberals worried about winning.

We all know how that worked out.

It doesn’t matter how right you are if you’re powerless.Right now we are.


I didn’t think so.


After four years of 5,000 Leap and Constitution study groups, of Constitutional workshops, and rallies in the park, let’s make a vow to ourselves and to each other: We’re Done With Losing.

Here are the books I challenge you to read in the next six months. Hold study groups on these tomes. Get people excited about winning a damn race here and there.

I won’t review. I’ll give you the list. Amazon’s pretty good about turning shoppers into buyers.


Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives

Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation

The Fourth Turning

The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns

The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)

Thinking, Fast and Slow

Steve Jobs

The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century

Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life

Imagine: How Creativity Works

The Dip: A Little Book That Teaches You When to Quit (and When to Stick)

Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us

These books are not about the Constitution or the wages of socialism. You already know all you need to know about those things.

These books are about winning. If you don’t start winning, it won’t matter what you else you know or believe.

P.S. If you object to any of these titles because they’re by or about a liberal, you’re the problem.

Studies Show Most Americans Are Too Stupid to Vote

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The new fad among Democrats is to see how many illegal aliens they can pack into a voting booth.  While we conservatives decry this illegal and anti-American grab at tyrannical power, we should take some solace in this sobering fact: those illegal aliens probably know as much about the American political system as most 13th generation Americans.


The fact is, most Americans are too stupid about politics to vote, which explains the 2008 election.

Just look at these horrendous numbers from Xavier University:

For example, when asked questions about our government and political leaders, the survey results found:

  • 85% did not know the meaning of the “the rule of law.”
  • 82% could not name “two rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.”
  • 75% were not able to correctly answer “What does the judiciary branch do?”
  • 71% were unable to identify the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.”
  • 68% did not know how many justices are on the Supreme Court.
  • 63% could not name one of their two US Senators.
  • 62% could not identify “What happened at the Constitutional Convention?”
  • 62% could not answer “the name of the Speaker of the US House.”

Who doesn’t want the highest possible number of people to vote?  I don’t.

My vote should not have to compete with that of a moron who can’t blurt out “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” when asked to name the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. (A “moron” is someone with a mental age between 8 and 12, for those of you who vote Democrat.)

If you don’t know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, you should not be allowed to vote–photo ID or not.  Nor should your political opinions carry weight among the 15 percent in this country who actually know something.

Combined with another survey released last week showing that liberals are politically ignorant, closed-minded, judgmental, hate-mongers, you realize that the voting franchise has been diluted too far.

Covenant of Liberty Is Available Now

Reading Time: 1

Covenant of Liberty is the best American history I’ve read in years.

Michael Patrick Leahy, among a very small group of patriots who hatched the first round of Tea Parties in February 2009, documents the US Government’s 230 year history of Constitutional infidelity.

My full review will be finished soon, but don’t wait: buy Covenant of Liberty today.

Mike Leahy was the keynote speaker on day one of the 3rd Anniversary Tea Party in St. Louis and has been a great friend and ally to STLTPC in our continuing fight for liberty.

Buy TWO copies—one to keep and one to lend.  Everyone needs to read this Covenant of Liberty.

Where Were You When Obama Nullified the Constitution?

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Most Americans know more about forensic evidence in the Casey Anthony case than they do about the Constitution.  That ignorance gave Barack Obama the hubris to end constitutional government in the United States. He did it, and you probably didn’t even notice.

Obama_DictatorOver the course of a week, Barack Obama made a series of so-called recess appointments. In the process, he and his henchmen in Eric Holder’s Justice Department effectively nullified the US Constitution.

The Constitution separates the federal government into three co-equal branches: executive (president), legislative (Congress), and judicial (courts).

Article I of the Constitution gives each House of Congress the power to make the rules under which it operates.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

One of the the rules each House sets for itself involves recess.  The Senate has rules governing its recesses; the House of Representatives governs its own.

But Obama Administration, through  the Justice Department, overruled the Senate’s rules on recesses.

Even the liberal New York Times found this dictatorial move troubling, recognizing that the White House has overturned a Senate rule:

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama went where Mr. Bush had declined to go. He invoked his constitutional right to recess appointments to install four nominees — the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, and three members of the National Labor Relations Board — effectively calling the pro forma Senate session illegitimate.

Its experts agree that Obama has nullified the Constitutional power of the Senate to advise on and consent to certain presidential appointments:

Republicans, lawyers and parliamentary experts say the move, if it survives potential legal challenges, could herald an end to the Senate’s constitutionally guaranteed right to advice and consent.

It’s easy for the left to shout “hyperbole” when confronted with terrifying evidence of Obama’s aims. This naked power grab exposes the sorry state of Constitutional government in the United States.  It demands drastic action by the courts and Congress and the people.

I see no reason why Congress, business, government employees, and citizens would obey any ruling, regulation, or requirement issued from the illegitimate offices filled without the Senate’s advice and consent. No one is required to obey an illegally appointed official, just as no one is required to obey an illegal order in the military. (In fact, a member of the military is required to disobeyillegal orders.)

The most significant of these appointments is the frighteningly powerful office Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—an office with the power to fine private businesses up to $1 million per day.

I also call on all Missouri and Illinois candidates to the US House or Senate to publicly state their position on these anti-Constitutional appointments.

Here’s what Constitutional scholar Mark Levin says:

The President of the United States is trashing the Constitution now day in and day out.

What do you think?

Read More on Heritage Foundation.

Image source:

Obama’s Contempt for the Rule of Law

Reading Time: 2 minutes

When he identified the three branches of government as President, House, and Senate, obama-lgWas Chuck Schumer confused, or did he accurately state the Obama administration’s intent to subjugate the Judicial Branch of government?  It seems the White House no longer considers the Judicial Branch the equal of the Executive.

In two cases—the Gulf oil drilling ban and Obamacare—the White House refuses to obey ruling from federal judges.  In New Orleans, federal judge Martin Feldman found the White House in contempt for its re-imposition of oil drilling bans after his previous ruling to the contrary.  Meanwhile, the government has refused to obey a Florida judge’s declaratory relief ruling over Obamacare. 

It’s not unusual for dictators to simply ignore court orders they don’t like.  But it’s very unusual in the United States. It indicates to me that the era of Constitutional government is over as citizens can no longer rely on injunctive relief from tyranny. 

A decade ago, Barack Obama told Chicago Public Radio the believes the U.S. Constitution “is a fundamentally flawed document.”  In that interview, he expressed his further belief that radicals who attempted to undermine the Constitution through the courts were misguided. 

Today we’re learning Obama’s preferred method of ending Constitutional law: naked aggression.

Soon, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear and rule on the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Many observers believe the court will find the individual mandate unconstitutional.  Based on his previous contempt for the rule of law, we have no reason to believe Obama would obey the Supreme Court’s ruling.

What’s the Constitutional Standing of a City?

Reading Time: 1

Many of the people who support eliminating state oversight of the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners are not conservatives.  Decidedly not.

There are some good conservatives who disagree over the Board of Police Commissioners for the City of St. Louis. I’ve heard some of these conservative make some strong arguments for abolishing the board or relinquishing it to St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay.

Some of the arguments in favor of so-called “home rule” are flat out false.  The biggest fallacy is the claim that local control is a Constitutional principle.

States are the only political sub-division mentioned in the Constitution.  Some claim that people are a second, but that doesn’t make sense.  People are not political subdivisions, but the earthly source of all political power. People, alone, may create political institutions.  Where the Constitution mentions “the People,” it is simply asserting powers that are reserved explicitly by the people.

So the Constitution divides the country as such: the United States and the respective States. 

Technically, the states have no Constitutional requirement to further subdivide.  A state could be nothing but a state.  It could authorize no cities, no counties.  Each state must create United States House of Representative districts, but those boundaries are irrespective of cities and counties. 

The principle of home rule has no Constitutional basis.  Supporters of abolishing state oversight of police boards practice deception when they hint otherwise.

I am confident that we will soon learn who is really behind the current home rule initiative.  When that information comes out, those supporting the initiative will have little choice but to switch sides. 

More to follow.  In the meantime, don’t be deceived.