Conservatives vs the Swamp

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

One of the claims that President Trump hailed during the campaign was that he wanted to “Drain the Swamp” in D.C. We heard many times from him and his surrogates about going to Washington to drain the swamp. Those at his rallies could even be heard chanting, “Drain the Swamp.”

It played great to the masses, but is it really possible? If all things remain equal, is this possible?

Well no – no it is not. First, without getting into detail, some of Trump’s cabinet picks belie his promise – although he never actually stated that, “I promise to Drain the Swamp.”

His choices of Sessions as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt at EPA, Tom Price at HHS, and certainly (we hope) the new supreme Court justice Gorsuch appear at first blush to be swamp drainers. But Reince Preibus, Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and Secretary of State Tillerson seem at best to be status quo swampists.

But it of course can’t all be left to Trump. There is no president who is capable of doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to this monumental and possibly insurmountable task. He must get help from the legislative branch. read more

Victory or Purity for the GOP

by: the Common Constitutionalist

By now, most everyone, at least geeks like us, have heard what Haley Barbour said last week in New Orleans at the Republican Leadership Conference.

For those in need of a reminder, here are a few highlights (or low lights), as reported by the Washington Times: “Being the purest, most conservative loser does not allow America to improve one iota,” Mr. Barbour said. “We have to be careful to remember in the mathematics winning is about addition and multiplication. Losing is about division and subtraction. Our party has lost ground in the last few years that we need to get back.”

He cited the loss of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, where she lost in the general election after defeating the establishment RINO, Mike Castle in the primary.

“We defeated a guy who was going to get 60 percent of the vote, and we gave that seat to a left wing Democrat who doesn’t vote right five percent of the time,” Mr. Barbour said. “We have done that more than once in recent times.”

He then added the money quote, “Purity is the enemy of victory… Victory stems from unity”.

Well Mr. Barbour, as an undesignated, self-appointed representative of constitutional conservatism, I can tell you that you and the rest of your Karl Rove establishment cronies are full of crap. read more

Life on the Republican Spineless Chicken Ranch

On Oct 8, NBC reported, “President Barack Obama vowed not to relent to what he called Republican “extortion” that would threaten a default on the national debt, but suggested he might accept a short-term agreement that could jump-start talks with Congress. 

But the nation’s top elected Republican, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, described Obama’s possible arrangement as akin to “unconditional surrender” to the president by Republicans.

“The president’s position that … we’re not going to sit down and talk to you until you surrender is just not sustainable,” Boehner said on Capitol Hill. “It’s not our system of government.” 

Well, evidently it is.

 Last night the Washington Times wrote, “Top senators struck a deal Wednesday to reopen the government and extend the federal government’s borrowing authority into next year and both sides of the Capitol are hoping for quick action to reassure nervous financial markets eyeing a Thursday deadline set by the Treasury Department.

“The compromise we reached will provide our economy with the stability it desperately needs,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said after he and his GOP counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell, struck the deal.

For Republicans, the deal was more about getting an embarrassing couple of weeks behind them than in being able to claim victory in a deal that they felt compelled to make.

“It’s my hope that today we can put some of those most urgent issues behind us,” Mr. McConnell said. In laying out the deal he struck, Mr. McConnell sought to shift the focus to the next battle already looming over the budget sequesters.

Ted Cruz, doesn’t blame the democrats, but the republicans for not backing his efforts to reign in government.”

  The Daily Kos couldn’t wait to reprint Judson Phillips reaction, head of Tea Party Nation. Mr. Phillips wrote, ” Barack Obama demanded unconditional surrender from the Republican Party.

He pretty much got it.

The Republican Party has capitulated on the central issue of Obamacare.  Mitch McConnell and John Boehner never wanted this fight.  In true RINO fashion, they wanted to surrender early and often. ….

In short, the GOP got nothing from their fight.  But then again, McConnell, Boehner and the GOP establishment never tried.

Does anyone believe either McConnell or Boehner will have the intestinal fortitude to go to the mat with Obama again?   It does not matter what Obama demands, these two will cave, guaranteeing it will pass.”

The Marxist at the Daily Kos closed with, ” Mr. Phillips, The Republican party just threw you overboard ass over teakettle. Bye bye.”

And that they did. But is anyone really surprised at the outcome? Frankly, at least for me, it was a foregone conclusion that the two head republican “cavemen” would do what they do best, succumb to pressure. It’s a wonder they can walk upright, without spines.

My guess is that the “pressure” they did get from democrats was all for show. You and I know that swine McConnell and “Dirty” Harry Reid had agreed on a deal early on and this was all just theater.

And as for the Washington Times claiming the fight was an embarrassment; I say for who, the RINO’s. I wasn’t embarrassed. Were you? I guess, according to the Times and the beltway bunch,  it’s embarrassing to fight for a good cause.

And so it’s official. We did lose and the Republican party did throw us overboard, again. Do we finally see where we stand? Finally? Might this really be the last straw for many who have called themselves republicans for so long?  

For years, many others and I have insisted there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties and have, at times, been vilified for it.

One must be completely blind not to see it now! 

As the Daily Kos said, Bye bye Republicans!

Is it Third Party Time yet, or just another night to get a pat on the head, a drink of water and a gentle nudge back to bed, like little Cindy Lou Who? And when we’re all fast asleep again, the Grinches can resume robbing us blind.

Beware the Hatch Effect

 

In 2014, several prominent Republicans in the House and Senate are going to be challenged by people more conservative than the incumbents in area where a more conservative person can still win.  Leading up to these challenges, conservatives must beware of the Hatch Effect.

In 2012, many conservatives in print, radio, and television came out quickly and endorsed Orrin Hatch against Dan Liljenquist.  Hatch had been a conservative warrior for a long time, he sounded conservative, and we’d need him in the fight against amnesty.  He made the rounds on television, radio, and had references in various op-ed columns.  Outside groups went to work for Orrin Hatch.

Those who fretted that Hatch might return to the ways of Ted Kennedy’s best friend on the right were drowned out by a near unified conservative front — one that did not include RedState.

In a debate against Dan Liljenquist, Hatch hit all the right notes on immigration.

Continue Reading

A Changing of the Guard for the Republicans?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I’m sure the left is just loving this, for they hate the conservative wing of the republican party as much as the RINO’s do.

McCainHuffPo writes: “One of the Senate’s leading hawks, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), took to the Senate floor Thursday to fire back at Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), saying the Kentuckian’s rant against extrajudicial drone killings was ‘simply false.’” It should have read, one of the Senate’s leading hacks.

The HuffPo report continued: “Quoting extensively from a Wall Street Journal editorial that mocked Paul, McCain also argued that Paul had belittled the growing use of drones to kill terrorism suspects by invoking the name of Jane Fonda and suggesting a drone could have killed her when she was a Vietnam War protester.”

“I must say that the use of Jane Fonda’s name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy — and even may demonstrate against it — is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false,” McCain said, hitting his lectern for emphasis. “It is simply false.”Paul

The Wall Street editorial read, “Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn’t explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an “enemy combatant” anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant.”

The only problem with the Journal editorial and McCain’s remarks is that Mr. Holder kept trying to dodge Senator Ted Cruz’s clear and concise question of whether it is constitutional for this government to drone strike an American citizen, within our borders, for example, sitting in a café, that poses no immediate threat. Rather than just affirming the unconstitutionality of such an act, Mr. Holder chose to keep insisting that they would never do that., saying, ” It’s hard to imagine when that would ever occur.” Hardly the correct answer. I, for one, take Attorney General Holder at his word. He has, after all, proven himself to be an honest and forthright individual ( eg: fast and furious). Right!

And who, Mr. editorial writer, shall be the judge (jury and executioner) of exactly who is a domestic enemy combatant? This President? Some unnamed, faceless bureaucrat?

If a U.S. citizen, on American soil, was deemed to be an enemy combatant, why would the police or FBI not take him into custody and try him in court, asrand-paul-cspan2 is constitutional? You know, like they are going to do with the non-U.S. citizen, Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist son-in-law.

And as for that fossil, John McCain’s mocking assertion regarding a drone strike on Jane Fonda; she was not on American soil. She was in Vietnam giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which is not within her constitutional rights. I agree, she should not have been droned, technology at the time aside. She should have been brought back to the United States and tried for treason.

All these ridiculous side shows are just that; side shows. At the heart of this issue, for Senator Paul and the others who stood by him, is the reckless behavior of this administration. Obama and his minions believe they can do anything they wish, just daring someone to stop them. Finally, someone dared to do just that.

As for Senators McCain, Graham and the other old farts of the so-called republican party; they see, with this one brave act (the filibuster) a possible changing of the guard, and it scares the crap out of them.

If Senator Paul had spent his 13 hours in relative anonymity, none of the RINO’s would have their respective panties in a bunch.  It would hardly have been given a mention.ted-cruz

But, as we all know, that is not what occurred. Senator Paul became a conservative rock star overnight, literally. He has become the talk of the town, or nation. His status in conservative circles, has skyrocketed. And why? Because someone finally stood up to the democrats and more importantly, the establishment republicans. He, as a United States Senator, just decided to do it. He didn’t feel the need to clear it with daddy McCain first.

Mike_LeeTo make sure his word got out to more people than he could imagine, he appeared on all three of the conservative heavy-hitters radio shows; Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity and their multi- millions of listeners.. That surely rubbed salt in McCain’s wounds, for he would never dare to appear on either Rush’s or Glenn’s programs. I believe he hates Limbaugh and Beck as much as Obama does.

The McCain, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, mushy middle-of-the-road wing of the republican party can ill afford a group of upstart young conservatives gaining popularity. These young bucks must be slapped down, and fast. If they gain too much popularity and real conservative voters begin to believe in them, the old guard will be sent out to pasture, along with all their advisors.

Thank you Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al.

Rove and the Soft Center

It’s Time to Declare War on Karl Rove and his ‘Conservative Defeat Project’

The New York Times is reporting “that the ‘biggest donors in the Republican Party’ have joined forces with Karl Rove and Steven J. Law, president of American Crossroads, to create the Conservative Victory Project.”

The Conservative Victory Project is a direct attack on the Tea Party and its conservative agenda to bring the GOP back to fiscal conservatism and a renewed moral culture that includes opposition to State-sanctioned abortion and State-promoted homosexual marriage, to name just two important social issues

The Times article states that “dedicate itself to ‘recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s effort to win control of the Senate.’”

People like Rove were content to have Richard Lugar of Indiana win re-election. He was one of his guys.

Karl Rove has been a disaster for conservatives ever since the door was opened to him to orchestrate the direction of the Republican Party. As you probably know, there are two main factions in the GOP: social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. But there’s another group that does not have a name yet and I’m not clever enough to come up with one. Corporate Welfarists might suffice until someone can come up with a better moniker.

They are Republicans who like the flow of free money just as much as Democrats do. They just like it directed at their kind of people. They’re not against stimulus money as long as it’s simulating their fat-cat donors.  Continue Reading

 

 

We Must be LOST

by:  

Just like a horror movie series, evil-minded Soviet-era treaties just keep coming back to life, aided by their acolytes in the United States Senate.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and mate of the Heinz ketchup fortune, last week decided to revisit the aptly named Law of the Sea Treaty — or LOST.

This treaty was originally rejected by President Reagan, but the LOST agenda has been lurking around the corridors of the United Nations ever since.

The treaty, which was endorsed by the former Soviet Union, would reduce our military power, rob us of rights over our own coastal resources, subject U.S. actions in international waters to the authority of foreign countries and submit our country to an international taxing agency that would “redistribute” our wealth to other nations, including some of our enemies.

Naturally, the liberals like it. And by liberals I mean not just Democrats but some of the RINOs hiding in the GOP camp, such as the five living Republican secretaries of state, from Kissinger to Rice.

The best reasons conjured for approving LOST include joining the international community in regulating the seas, “having a seat at the table” to negotiate rights over resources and having legal recourse should other nations violate our rights. Most incredibly, promoters of this treaty seem to think we’ll believe it increases our national security.

First, joining the international community to regulate the seas: We can already do that without the United Nations being given authority over us. It’s called diplomacy and negotiation.

Having a seat at the table: Unless you’re talking about an invitation to a gourmet feast or at least Thanksgiving dinner, a seat at the table isn’t worth much. Easy marks have a seat at the table, then they get taken for everything they’re worth and dumped in a back alley for their trouble.

Legal recourse against other nations that violate our rights: We have that already, again without the U.N. It’s called the United States military –and it’s a lot more effective than a pronouncement from some international courtroom.

As for increasing our national security, only a liberal could think that joining a treaty that requires us to give away secrets and our best technology to foreign nations that may use it against us is a way to secure the country.

The biggest stupidity of this treaty, however, is its granting of taxing authority to a Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority, especially at a time when the U.S. economy is suffering under its third year of recession. To raise taxes now would drive a stake through American businesses and the middle class.

The LOST convention represents a complete violation of the trust voters put in their representatives. Naturally, President Obama is already on board. Conservative voters need to tell their Senators to vote against it and keep LOST from being ratified.