DANIEL VAUGHAN: George Will is wrong. Vote Republican in the midterms.
June 25, 2018
George F. Will’s latest column is entitled: “Vote against the GOP this November.”
I couldn’t disagree more.
While I greatly respect Will, I don’t agree with him on telling voters to vote Democrat.
Even if you agree with all his points on there being deep fissures within the Republican Party, that’s still not enough to convince conservative voters to vote for the Democratic Party in November.
With the tragic death of Charles Krauthammer, George Will has become one of the deans of conservative writers, thinkers, and pundits. What he says carries considerable weight, and because he’s born the banner through many political and cultural fights in the past, his opinions deserve respect.
But he’s wrong on voting against the GOP in the November midterms.
Will’s primary point is that House Republicans should be stripped of their power because they’ve failed to stand up to the president. More directly, Will argues that House Republicans should lose control to learn why they should take a more active role in reasserting their Article I powers. He explains:
In today’s GOP, which is the president’s plaything, [Trump] is the mainstream. So, to vote against his party’s cowering congressional caucuses is to affirm the nation’s honor while quarantining him. A Democratic-controlled Congress would be a basket of deplorables, but there would be enough Republicans to gum up the Senate’s machinery, keeping the institution as peripheral as it has been under their control and asphyxiating mischief from a Democratic House.
There’s a reason Will is pitching his argument on voting against Republicans: because, for a conservative or even centrist voter, there isn’t a positive case to vote for the Democratic Party. Political scientists have observed in American voter attitudes that Democrats and Republicans aren’t voting for their respective parties so much as they’re voting against the other party.
In other words, for Will’s argument to work, you have to believe as a conservative that there’s more reason to vote against Republicans than there is to vote against Democrats.
I’m sympathetic to the view that Congress is failing in fulfilling its Article I obligations under the Constitution. My last column on the immigration controversy at the southern border argued that only Congress has the ultimate power to fix it.
But if you replaced a Republican House with a Democratic House, that wouldn’t fix Congress’ Article I problems.
If Nancy Pelosi led the House, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would end up spending all his time defeating Democratic House bills. Congress would come to a grinding halt.
We already witnessed how Pelosi led the House as Majority Leader and as Minority Leader. She doesn’t play the compromise game on legislation: her bill wins, or else nothing gets done.
The official Democratic Party legislative solution to the border crisis and family separation was an insane bill that prevented any family separation happening anywhere, with few exceptions. The law, if enacted, would have prevented ICE, DHS, and other agencies like the FBI from arresting anyone for any crime if the criminal had a child present.
It was a profoundly unserious proposal.
But I’d expect this unserious stance from a party desperately trying to keep the hardliner left at bay. The same far-left that’s trying to push the Democratic Party to abolish ICE and create a world of no-borders.
They’re pandering to left-wing fringes, not trying to help children.
Even if you agreed with Will’s argument, that Trump is damaging the Republican Party and needs to be stopped, why would you give power to a party that doesn’t view Trump as a significant threat?
Now the left is claiming that Donald Trump is “literally Hitler,” and comparing everything to the Holocaust.
The left is so convinced that Trump is Hitler, they’re lecturing and browbeating Jews who are, understandably, taken aback by partisan politics cheapening historical tragedies like the Holocaust.
It’s hard to take the left seriously on their fascism charges since they’ve compared and lambasted every single Republican candidate for president to Hitler.
As pundit Jonah Goldberg points out, it’s empty rhetoric:
In short, “fascist” is a modern word for “heretic,” branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—“racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “christianist”—for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving.
George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language”: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'”
We know what will happen next: whatever Republican candidate or president that comes after Trump will be compared to Hitler and labeled fascist as well. And suddenly, Democrats will develop a “strange new respect” for Trump, just as they have for Mitt Romney and John McCain (who were also “literally fascists” or “Hitler”).
Combine this with the fact that the Democratic Party has made zero effort to reach out to conservative or centrist voters (the last attempt was Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” speech) and there’s no reason to vote for Democrats if you’re on the right.
George Will is simply wrong. Vote for Republicans in November.
WOW: SUPREME COURT DELIVERS HUGE RULING ON DEM GOVERNOR’S ORDER GIVING FELONS VOTING RIGHTS
June 11, 2018 Martin
ShareTweetThe Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled that Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order restoring the “right to vote” of more than 200,000 felons was illegal and unconstitutional.
According to Fox News, Virginia’s highest court ruled on Friday that the Democrat governor overstepped his authority and should not have allowed tens of thousands of felons the right to vote.
In a 4-3 decision, the high court ordered the state to cancel the registration of roughly 11,300 felons who signed up to vote after McAuliffe’s April 2016 executive order. His ruling allowed many felons to vote in the 2016 presidential election, which happened to be a state Hillary Clinton won.
House Speaker William Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment called the ruling a huge victory for the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law:
“Our nation was founded on the principles of limited government and separation of powers. Those principles have once again withstood assault from the executive branch. This opinion is a sweeping rebuke of the governor’s unprecedented assertion of executive authority.”
Rather than immediately cancelling more than 200,000 felons voting rights, the court stated that it will order the state to complete the task periodically.
McAuliffe’s order restored voting rights to criminal offenders who had already completed their sentences. As such, his order allowed them to become a public notary, serve on a jury, and even run for public office.
McAuliffe, a top ally to Clinton who campaigned with her in the 2016 presidential election, came under fire last month when an admitted pedophile and convicted felon announced that he would be running for state office. The felon was legally eligible to run for public office because of McAuliffe’s order.
As noted by The Daily Caller, another felon who wants to legalize incest in Virginia is also eligible to run for public office because of McAuliffe.
The convicted felon sparked national outrage last month after many learned that he would be allowed to run for Congress because of McAuliffe’s order. The felon stated that he not only wanted to ban incest — sexual intercourse between closely related people — he also said publicly that he wanted to have sex with his own daughter.
McAuliffe’s order comes amid growing rumors that the he will launch a presidential bid in 2020.
The Clinton ally has a history of controversial actions, and now he is facing growing questions about his leadership given his executive order allowed convicted felons, pedophiles, and rapists to run for public office.
Connecticut Subverts the Electoral College, Rejecting Its Own History
Tara Ross / @TaraRoss / May 10, 2018
Tara Ross is a retired lawyer and author of several books, including "The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders' Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule," and "We Elect a President: The Story of Our Electoral College."
Opponents of the Electoral College achieved an important victory last weekend when Connecticut’s legislature passed the so-called National Popular Vote compact. Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is expected to sign the measure.
Most Americans have never heard of the National Popular Vote compact, but it is shockingly close to causing a major political and legal firestorm. It is a clever scheme to change how we elect the president without the bother of having to pass a constitutional amendment.
States that approve this legislation enter a simple compact with one another. Each participating state agrees to allocate its electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how its own citizens voted. The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the plan.
With Connecticut’s vote, 11 states and the District of Columbia have now approved the measure, giving the compact a total of 172 electors. It needs only 98 more to reach the 270 mark.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
>>> Purchase Tara Ross’ book, “The Indispensable Guide to the Electoral College, Destroying the Electoral College”
The Constitution State has drifted far from its roots. What would Founders such as Roger Sherman think? That Connecticut statesman was an influential delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Great Compromise—sometimes called the Connecticut Compromise— which gave Congress its bicameral structure, might never have been brokered without him.
Moreover, Sherman was one of many delegates from small states who refused to go along with the idea of a direct popular vote for the presidency. He knew that little Connecticut would be outvoted time and time again. The people at large, Sherman told the Convention, “will generally vote for some man in their own state, and the largest state will have the best chance for the appointment.”
His words reflected the sentiments of other small state delegates.
“An election by the people [is] liable to the most obvious and striking objections,” Charles Pinckney of South Carolina said. “They will be led by a few active and designing men. The most populous states by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.”
Hugh Williamson of North Carolina added that “[t]he people will be sure to vote for some man in their own state, and the largest state will be sure to succeed.”
Another delegate was much more direct. “I do not, gentlemen, trust you,” Gunning Bedford of Delaware blasted. “If you possess the power, the abuse of it could not be checked; and what then would prevent you from exercising it to our destruction?”
His statement was strong, but it reflected the fear felt by every small-state delegate in the room.
>>> “Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme”
The 2016 election showed just how reasonable those fears were. Much has been made of Hillary
Clinton’s victory in the national popular vote, but less attention has been paid to where she achieved that victory.
More than 20 percent of Clinton’s 65.8 million votes came from only two states: New York and California. Indeed, if we remove those states from the national tally, Clinton loses by more than three 3 million votes.
Such a lopsided result is not what she had in mind, of course, and she surely wishes that she could move some of those votes to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. She needed to diversify her support in order to win because of the Electoral College. She failed to do that.
Now imagine what Clinton—or any candidate—could do without the restraints inherent in the Electoral College system.
If Clinton reaped a reward from those landslide victories in Los Angeles and New York City, wouldn’t she have worked even harder to run up her tallies there? Why would she make extra visits to Rust Belt states if she could make up the votes with massive voter drives in the big cities?
With the Electoral College, the Democratic Party received a firm reminder not to take those states for granted. Without the Electoral College, such states—which make up vast swaths of the electorate—could simply be ignored.
>>> Liberals Claim Electoral College Is Biased. Here Are the Facts.
The 1888 election taught a similar lesson. Landslide margins in a few Southern states gave
Grover Cleveland the edge in the national popular vote. But lopsided regional support wasn’t enough to win him the White House. He learned from his mistakes and came back to win in 1892.
The Electoral College discourages overreliance on a single kind of voter. That’s healthy in a country as diverse as ours. It ensures that small states and less populated parts of the country can make themselves heard. It encourages presidential candidates to build diverse coalitions.
These are principles that Roger Sherman understood so well. He surely wouldn’t understand the decision made by his own state last weekend.
Connecticut has joined an effort to subvert a constitutional institution, even as it attempts an end run around the constitutional amendment process. The Constitution State may no longer be worthy of its name.
Editor’s note: Some quotations in this article have been modified for formatting.
Republican Congressman Tom Rooney announces his retirement
February 20, 2018
Son of Groucho / CCL
Republican Rep. Tom Rooney is done with being a Congressman.
The Florida representative announced on Monday that he will not campaign for a sixth term in Congress.
Will not run again“After what will be 10 years in the United States Congress representing the good people of Florida’s Heartland, it’s time to ‘hang ’em up’ as my old football coach used to say. I will not be running for re-election to Congress in 2018,” he said in a statement on Monday.
“I want to thank my constituents for allowing me the opportunity to serve them in Washington. I also want to recognize the amazing team that has worked alongside for the people of Florida’s 16th and 17th districts over five terms, especially Chief of Staff Jess Moore, District Director Leah Valenti, Field Rep Sherry McCorkle, and Office Manager Dean Lester, who have been with me since the beginning,” he said.
Rooney is one of the top Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Earlier this month he said that partisanship was destroying the committee and could damage national security, Fox News reported.
Florida School ShootingRooney’s announcement came days after a gunman stormed Parkland High School in Florida and killed 17 people.
The Florida representative issued a statement after the shooting calling for measures to be taken to protect kids. “My heart is broken over the news of the shooting in Parkland this week. As a father to three children of my own, I cannot fathom what it must be like to send your child off to school and plan their funeral all in the same day,” he said in a statement.
“As details surrounding the shooting have emerged, it has become clear to me we have a lot of work to do. As lawmakers, people expect us to act to stop this needless bloodshed and violence. Congress can – and should – immediately work in a bipartisan way to provide ample federal resources to help make sure that no one wishing to commit these mass atrocities can even step foot inside a school. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had a school resource officer on campus, but it is obvious just one resource officer is not enough. That’s why I am requesting increased federal funding for the federal COPS Hiring Program to make sure state and local law enforcement entities can put school resource officers in every corner of every school,” he wrote.
“We also need to prioritize identifying and treating children with serious emotional issues and mental illnesses. The Parkland shooter showed all the signs of someone who was immensely disturbed and clearly posed a threat to human life. If he had been treated for these problems earlier, or had federal authorities appropriately heeded these warnings, maybe this terrible incident could have been prevented. If one thing is clear to me, it’s that we have failed in our duty to keep our kids safe. They cannot wait in fear for our help any longer. Now is the time for us to act,” he said.
Rep. Rooney did not say if the Russian investigation or the Parkland shooting were part of the reason he decided to retire from Congress.
Republican RetirementsRooney is just the latest Republican to announce his impending retirement. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) disappointed many when he announced last month that he would leave the Capitol after finishing out his term and return to working in the justice system.
Reps. Bob Goodlatte, Darrell Issa, and Lynn Jenkins are a few of the other Republican representatives who won’t be running for re-election.
The Senate faces losses as well. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is also retiring this year, opening the door for former presidential candidate Mitt Romney to take his seat. Other Republican senators who won’t return include Sen. Bob Corker from Tennessee and Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona.
It’s a troubling sign for the Republicans, who will now have more open seats to fill than the Democrats currently do. As the Atlantic reports, “just nine House Democrats are retiring outright or have already resigned, compared with 25 Republicans.”
On the other hand, open seats mean more opportunity for fresh faces and new ideas, and maybe, just maybe, more conservative candidates.
Following is list of who in Senate and a link to those in House who voted against the fiscally irresponsible 2018 Budget - thanks Tina.
Obviously, there were differing motivations involved in their decision.
Conservative/Non-establishment Repubs who voted against it knew it was not fiscally responsible and/or it did not include any $ to construct the Wall. Dems who voted against it did so because DACA not part of it - Pelosi voted against it before she voted for it by the way.
The House roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll069.xml
16 Republican Senators who voted against it were: Burr, Cassidy, Corker, Crapo, Daines, Enzi, Flake, Grassley, Johnson, Kennedy, Lankford, Lee, Paul, Risch, Sasse, and Toomey.
For us Floridians, Rubio & Nelson both voted for this irresponsible bill. For us Central Floridians, Ross, Rooney, Soto all voted for it - very disappointing. Also disappointing is DeSantis who has announced his candidacy for Gov voted for it. True to his conservative form Dan Webster voted against it.
National Popular Vote, Fairfield Glade, TN