Friday, August 04, 2017

A Short Primer on the Descent of the GOP

The GOP was dead when Reagan left office in 1989. After Reagan got 2 terms, the GOP Establishment determined, "we ain't never gonna let THAT happen again!" And they haven't. 

1988 Bush I, 1992 Bush I, 1996 Dole, 2000 Bush II, 2000 Bush II, 2004 Bush II, 2008 McCain, 2012 Romney, 2016 Trump.... 

ALL have been Establishment GOP (some worse than other, obviously), except Trump, who was a Democrat until 2-3 years ago, and he is really a populist with a nationalist streak. NONE have been Conservatives in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

The GOP as a party has not stood for Conservative Principles since they took over Congress in 1995, for the first time in 40 years, and passed 7 of the 10 points of the "Contract With America." And after they did that, they let Bill Clinton take the credit, and bowed to him for the rest of his Presidency. They even allowed him to shut down the government and blame them. 

By 1996, I resigned by position as a County Executive Committeeman in the SC GOP and left the party. The Establishment is too entrenched. They fixed the system after Reagan so that Conservatives cannot get the nomination. Trump -- he was, and is, an anomaly, that they haven't figured out yet. Truthfully, were it not for open primaries in a number of States where Independents and Democrats could crossover and vote in the GOP primaries, I doubt Trump could have won the nomination. But it is absolutely certain a Conservative NEVER will again.

The GOP Establishment want nothing more than to thwart Trump where he wishes to upset the Status Quo. No change to ObamaCare, Taxes, etc. They are as much a part of the system -- and the problem -- as Democrats are. In that much, Trump deserves the support of Conservatives -- although we may not support his specific "fixes" of those problems. We'll see.

Bottom line: The GOP will have to die and a new 2nd Party will have to emerge to take it's place before the Status Quo can ever change. And so many millions are so entrenched in the current status quo that it may take civil war to rip them away from it.... That's what happened the last time a new party entered the system: The Republicans.

Sunday, July 02, 2017

WHY GOP REP. JUSTIN AMASH VOTED NO ON “KATE’S LAW,” & WHY HE WAS WRONG

This week, Rep, Justin Amash (R-MI) was one of the few Republicans to vote against “Kate’s Law,” which was a strong step in tightening laws against criminal Illegal Immigrants, Border Security, and punishment of so-called “Sanctuary Cities.” Amash, who is more Libertarian than Republican, gives his reasons below in a short letter to his constituents. Following that, I have written an even shorter rebuttal letter to explain why Rep. Amash is absolutely Constitutionally – wrong. – JDW
_________________________________________________
Rep. Justin Amash's statement on his vote against HR3003, the "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act":
"I voted no on #HR3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.

This bill increases the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) detention of suspected illegal aliens, defunds sanctuary cities, and limits the ability of state and local governments to direct their law enforcement resources. In doing so, the bill violates at least five constitutional amendments.
The bill violates the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting any state or locality from doing anything that would restrict the ability of their law enforcement officers to "assist" federal immigration enforcement, giving state and local governments legal immunity for providing such assistance, and limiting transfers of aliens to sanctuary cities for criminal prosecution.
I have voted in the past to defund law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities that prohibit information sharing between their law enforcement and federal immigration officials (including #HR3009 in the 114th Congress), but this bill also prohibits any actions or policies that may restrict local law enforcement's cooperation with, or assistance to, federal immigration enforcement. This goes far beyond just facilitating the exchange of information that local law enforcement may already come across in the course of their own activities; this bill unconstitutionally enables the federal government to coerce states into helping with actual enforcement of immigration laws. Plus, it gives immunity to states for assisting with immigration enforcement, and it affirmatively punishes states for noncompliance.
Congress has no authority to direct state and local officials in this way. Our Constitution establishes a system of dual federalism. In Congress, the laws we make are to be executed by federal officials; we may not commandeer nonfederal officials.
The bill violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment's due process requirements by increasing DHS's use of, and authority for, warrantless arrests and detentions of suspected illegal aliens. As their texts make clear, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply explicitly to all "people" and "person[s]" within the United States. The Constitution uses the word "citizen" in other provisions whenever that word is intended. This interpretation of the Constitution's applicability is shared by the Supreme Court, including among the conservative justices.
The bill violates the Eleventh Amendment—which largely prohibits Congress from unilaterally permitting lawsuits against states—by allowing the victims of crimes committed by an illegal alien to sue a state that declines to fulfill a request from the federal government to detain the alien.
Lastly, the bill violates the First Amendment by likely interfering with the ability of state and local officials and other individuals to make statements regarding immigration enforcement policies and priorities.
I support securing the borders, and I have voted to defund sanctuary cities, but I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, even when it means I must oppose bills aimed at policy goals that I support.
It passed 228-195."

~Rep. Justine Amash, June 29, 2017
_________________________________________________
Rep. Amash -

You should know better. The Tenth Amendment is clear, that "The powers not designated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
But, the authority to make laws with regard to immigration (or naturalization) IS among the enumerated powers TO the Congress of the United States in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
“The two references in the Constitution that specifically mention “naturalization, ” are found in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.
The second reference is located in the 14th Amendment stating that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” are, “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The key thought in the 14th Amendment which along with several other provisions established in the Constitution shows that the intent of the Framers was that only citizens of the United States whether born or naturalized are granted the rights and privileges that are available in America.”*
So, Rep. Amash, here, You MISapply these 5 Amendments to illegal immigrants, and, in THIS case infer to the States powers they do not have, Constitutionally.
Such is the occasional tendency of the Libertarian......

- JDW (*with a few paragraphs borrowed from Erick Erickson)

Thursday, June 29, 2017

By Way of Reminder: The Constitution and our Governing Authority in the United States

In the United States, the "Higher Power" or "Government Authority" of Romans 13:1-7 is the Constitution.
The Constitution is "Caesar." As Founding Father John Adams observed, "We are a government of Laws, and not of men." However, it is and always has been incumbent upon "We the People" to KEEP our government a Constitutional Republic, as intended by the Founders. Benjamin Franklin rightly warned the people of the nation that in the Constitution, the Founders had given us "A Republic, if you can keep it!"
Additionally, John Adams further warned Americans that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
So, why are we in the mess we're in today? Because it was, and is, up to Americans, to "...bind him [the government/government officials] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution..." as Thomas Jefferson exhorted us.
We have, as a people, FAILED to do this. We have failed because we have, over generations, had neither the moral fortitude nor the political convictions to enforce these ideals our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us on a government full of men with designs on power, graft, and the distortion or destruction of our Constitution and the very republican order upon which we were founded. Based on these standards, they have "won."
That does not mean I, as an American nor as a Christian, am not still entitled to the "inalienable rights" given me and all men by their Creator, nor that I am exempt from standing up and fighting for them, against tyrants and despots -- even if they are my "countrymen."

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

On Constitutional Conservatives, Libertarians -- Their Similarities and Differences

Constitutional Conservatives will disagree to some degree with Libertarians in regard to where ones Liberty ends, and the infringement on another's begins, and also what must necessarily constitute a just and orderly society. But, with few -- in fact, I can only think of ONE -- exception, Constitutional Conservatives believe these issues belong at the State level, or even the local level, not at the Federal Level -- except where they might compromise certain Federal duties or assigns (National Defense, interstate commerce, etc). IN general, Constitutional Conservatives certainly affirm that self-government is the best government.

And Constitutional Conservatives are better characterized as believing in an ASSERTIVE foreign and military policy, as opposed to an "aggressive" policy. The difference would be that, as a Constitutional Conservative, I did NOT agree with Obama's military campaign in Libya (in fact, it was illegal, if one considers the War Powers Act of 1973 to carry any weight). However, Establishment Republicans (and some, referred to as "Neo-Conservatives", though they are neither new nor "conservative") like Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham were all for Libya -- and any other engagement they can entangle us in. An "assertive" policy recognizes OUR global interests, our presence around the world, and the global threat environment which now exists. An "assertive" policy would not allow us to practice "isolation" from the global scene -- but it would also guard against involving us in every single conflict in the world, especially those in which we have no vested interests, and our citizens are not in harms way. An "assertive" policy would maintain our "presence" at strategically important points and places in the world -- but it would also insist that we divest ourselves of hundreds of out-of-date military bases from long past wars where we no longer need to station our forces. An "assertive" policy would insist that our allies who can defend themselves, but have allowed us to defend them for decades, start paying for our services, and begin the process of building their own defenses, so that we can spend less time and money doing it for them.

No -- I'm not a candidate.  But I have thought out the differences of a Constitutional Conservative from both "Establishment Republicans" and so-called "Neo-Conservatives," and also from Libertarians as well. Reasonable Libertarians and Reasonable Constitutional Conservatives can work with each other -- if they determine to do so. It's a heck of a lot easier than trying to work with Progressives OR Establishment GOP-types. And preferable too.