How the 'Never Trump' Movement Killed the Republican Party

The Republican Party is dead.  It doesn’t realize it yet, but it is dead.  And though it has been terminally ill for nearly 20 years, it was finally euthanized by the ‘never Trump’ movement.

Should Trump meet expectations and lose the election next month, those in the ‘never Trump’ camp will do what they usually do following an election defeat – blame the voters.  You see, in their minds, we don’t understand how to win elections.  They know better than us.  The nation (we) doesn’t want conservatives, or people willing to stand up to the status quo.  The country doesn’t need smaller government, lower taxes, a balanced budget and secure borders.  What we need is squishy moderates who embrace most progressive policies only slightly smaller, with tweaks around the edges.

Exactly what the feckless GOP establishment has given us ever since the Mitch McConnell / John Boehner / John McCain wing of the party has been giving us since they took over.  Democrat lite.

Every four years the ‘establishment’ – the governing elites in the media/ government complex – savage any true conservatives running for the nomination while pushing their chosen insiders.  Even this year the anti-Trump and Cruz forces marshalled early, spending millions to nominate their guy while telling us how stupid we are to support outsiders.  

Bob Dole?  Hey, we all have to support him.  It’s the only way to stop Bill Clinton.  And while you conservatives and anti-establishment types don’t like him, well, he’s the nominee.  Ditto for John McCain and Mitt Romney versus fill-in-the-blank.  

But the leadership lost control this cycle.  By again trying to rig the nomination and telling us how Trump could never win, and every time he said something controversial he was dead.  Cruz, nobody even likes him in Washington.  We know better.  We have the savior of the party who can beat Hillary.  Can somebody remind me how many delegates did Jeb get?

Now please don’t misunderstand me.  Donald Trump is no conservative.  I’m not even sure he’s a Republican.  Of the 16 candidates who entered the primary season, he was around 12^th on my list.

But Trump won the nomination precisely because of the ineffective, inarticulate, go-along-to-get-along Republican establishment.  The never Trumpers.  Those members of our party elite who will trash anti-establishment Republicans in the harshest terms but would never dream of calling out Democrats.

Ted Cruz?  The Devil incarnate.  Trump?  Crazy, unstable, a lunatic, racist.  And these charges come from Republican elected officials.  There is little doubt that the best weapon the Democrats have against Republicans is other Republicans.

So this weekend, with Hillary Clinton sagging in the polls and all the momentum on Trumps side, the mainstream media, spurred by the obvious collusion with the Clinton campaigns OPO research team, releases and 11 year old tape of Trump being all rapster-like vulgar on a Hollywood tabloid show.  And Republican leaders and talking heads trip over themselves getting to the microphone to denounce Trump and withdraw their support.  Like the trained seals at the circus leaving Democrats amazed and laughing at the same time.

This tape has been out there for years.  Everyone in the MSM has known about it.  Interesting how it amazingly surfaces with the polls tightening in October.  Surprise!

With the impeccable timing of Wiley E Coyote getting caught in his own trap, the Republicans again follow the media storyboard.  Every politician is asked to denounce Trump and they do. 

Rather than articulate why Hillary is wrong for America on substance and character, they attack OUR nominee for…  What was it again?  Oh, talking in vulgar terms about women.  Something we know Bill and Hillary would never do.

No member of the media ever asks Democrats to denounce anything their political fellows do.  Bill Clinton, greatest hero ever.  Anthony Weiner?  Well, he’s already gone.  And while Hillary Clinton – great defender of women and children – defends a brutal rapist of a 12 year old girl, publicly and privately attacks victims of her husband’s assaults as head of the ‘bimbo eruption’ team and no one is ever asked to comment on that.

Old news.  Nothing to see here. Heck, it’s just sex.  But hey, did you hear what that Trump said on tape 11 years ago?  What a reprobate.  Totally unqualified…..  

The movement that got Trump the nomination and practically poised to win the election a few weeks ago was not about Trump.  It was about the Washington political establishment and how it has failed the American people.  It was a reaction to the incredible circumstances where American patriots like the Tea Party and others handed Republicans majorities in the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 only to be repeatedly kicked in the crotch by the Whig leadership in DC.

When an opposition party no longer effectively opposes its opposite and even ceases to express opposition to members and policy of the ruling party, it no longer has a reason to be.

In the aftermath of this ugly divisive election one thing is sure.  Many republican rank and file members who abandoned party leadership to support an outsider candidate will not be coming back.  Many blue collar Democrats, disillusioned with the alt progressive policies of their party, are looking for a home, but you can bet it won’t be the GOP.

Like the Whigs before them, it is very likely that the Republican Party, lacking a vision, any sort of geffective leadership, and the ability to articulate a set of governing principals is unlikely to recover and is headed for the ash-heap of history.

Copyright 2016 Reprint permitted with the following citation:
TJPaine
Un^Common Sense
Dedicated to the Advancement of Americanism
http://uncommonsense-tpaine.blogspot.com/

The Dangerous Circular Logic of Chief Justice Roberts

Wrongheaded ruling potentially more dangerous than if Court had simply upheld Obamacare

In possibly the biggest legal shocker by the Supreme Court this century, the Court ruled 5-4 to uphold Obamacare in NFIB vs. Sebelius.  Most legal and political observers expected Obamacare to fall, with Kennedy being the critical swing vote.  But in a big surprise, Roberts -  painted as a Conservative ideologue- turned out to be the decider.  And he didn’t come down on the side of liberty.

In fact, liberal politicians and their allies in the media and talking head class had already begun railing against an ‘ideological’ court and ‘dangerous’ 5-4 rulings.  The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee had already begun fund raising based on the a defeat for Obamacare, and no less than Ted Kennedy’s son, former Rep Patrick (D-RI), warned that “dangerous Tea Party extremists will go on a rampage” if Obamacare is upheld.  One has to wonder how those pundits and pols feel about 5-4 rulings today.

But the prediction game is meaningless.  What happened was a tremendous assault on Liberty.  And Conservative pundits who grasp at straws and try to spin this as a victory for upholding the commerce clause are deceiving themselves.  The circular argument advanced by Roberts does more to eviscerate Constitutional protections on Individual Liberty than most any decision in our history.

The dissent was a well articulated, well reasoned treatise on law, the protections of individual Liberty, and the limits to Governmental power guaranteed by the Constitution.  In fact, it reads like an Opinion not the Dissent.  Judge Kennedy is to be commended for his clearness of thought and apparent anger as he read the dissent from the bench.  As usual, Justices Thomas and Scalia were brilliant, and Alito proved his Constitutional bona fides. (if you haven’t done so, please read the dissent here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf )

The four Progressive activists on the bench were exactly what we expected.  Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, and newcomers Sotomayor and Kagan acted as mere rubber stamps for the continued expansion of an ever growing government.

The surprise was Roberts.  Expected to be a Constitutional originalist when he was appointed by President George W Bush, he seemed to at least understand the argument, reasoning in his Opinion that the law’s ‘individual mandate’ was a clear violation of the Commerce Clause:  ‘Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product.’  Ok, great start.  And this is what caused the false reporting and premature celebration by lovers of Liberty when the Opinion was initially read.

Roberts even cited the ‘broccoli analogy’ that drives Progressives nuts:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority…The Government argues that the individual mandate can be sustained as a sort of exception to this rule, because health insurance is a unique product. According to the Government, upholding the individual mandate would not justify mandatory purchases of items such as cars or broccoli because, as the Government puts it, "[h]ealth insurance is not purchased for its own sake like a car or broccoli; it is a means of financing health-care consumption and covering universal risks." But cars and broccoli are no more purchased for their "own sake" than health insurance. They are purchased to cover the need for transportation and food.

This is the seminal argument for ruling the mandate unconstitutional.  But, unfortunately, Roberts continued: 

 if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition--not owning health insurance--that triggers a tax--the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. 

This is one of the most circular and illogical arguments that could be presented, and one wonders how Roberts could make it.

So, in Roberts’s muddled logic, the government can’t require individuals to purchase a product they don’t want.  However, Congress can tax an Individual for not buying a product they don’t want.  In other words, government cannot  mandate that an individual buy broccoli – that would be unconstitutional.  However, what if government wants to tax an individual for not buying broccoli?  Why, in Roberts’s new world that is perfectly legit.

But that is absurd – no one would seek to compel everyone to purchase broccoli – everybody hates it.  And the ‘public cost’ argument certainly doesn’t apply to consumption of broccoli.  And, after all, mandating insurance “is a means of financing health-care consumption and covering universal risks."

But with the current push toward curbing the ‘epidemic’ of obesity, could not the argument be made that exercise reduces the incidence of obesity thereby helping minimize ‘universal risks?’  So Congress won’t ‘Mandate’ gym membership, but will ‘tax’ you if you if you don’t exercise.  See, our Liberty isn’t infringed upon at all. 

And as the Progressives smugly nod their heads at the new found ability to compel society to do what they want, think of this:  Suppose that a Republican Congress decided to tax any individual that does not own a firearm for personal protection.  After all, by not being able to defend yourself it costs society extra in police protection.  Again, it is not a mandate, “the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes.”

By arguing that Congress has the authority to ‘Tax’ virtually anything, including non-activity, Roberts has cast a dangerous blow to Liberty.  His ruling is in fact more dangerous than if the Court had simply upheld Obamacare.

Copyright 2012 Reprint permitted with the following citation:
TJPaine
Un^Common Sense
Dedicated to the Advancement of Americanism
http://uncommonsense-tpaine.blogspot.com/

Mandate or ‘Accommodation’ – Either Way Obamacare is an Unconstitutional Overreach

Dust-up with Catholic Church Illustrates the Massive Restriction on Liberty

The recent debate over the Obamacare Mandate that employers cover birth control, contraception services, and even the morning after abortion pill at little or no cost uncovers the bigger issue with Obamacare – that it is an unconstitutional power grab by the Federal government.

The dispute has been widely covered, so I will not cover its merits or why the government mandating that a religious organization set aside its tenets and purchase coverage for its employees is not constitutional. The problem is most analysts, the mainstream media, and even religious organizations have gotten lost in the details, so they miss the bigger picture. This type of government seizure of our liberty must be fought not just on narrow or specific religious grounds.

The Progressives who seek an overarching, all powerful state see one huge problem to their objectives – the US Constitution. In fact, President Obama in his days as a professor of Constitutional law expressed this frustration and the core belief of the left in America. That the Constitution is a ‘charter of negative rights.’ This is exactly what the framers sought when they drafted the Constitution and its antecedent, the Declaration of Independence.

When the founding fathers met in Philadelphia in 1776, it was to declare their independence from an all powerful monarch who trampled the rights of the people. In fact, they listed a number of grievances against the King, and ended by establishing the bed rock of the American Republic – ‘that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…’

Rights come from God. Men are born with them, and government cannot and does not give rights to its citizens. Moreover, the Founders were keenly aware that to prevent government from seizing rights and enslaving its citizenry, it was critical to institute a Constitution that protected the citizens from the government.

Progressives try to stand this on its head. Going back to Theodore Roosevelt and continuing to this day, Progressives have tried to convey ‘rights’ on the citizens, and see the Constitution as standing in their way.

The latest example of this is the ‘right’ of all women to free contraception under Obamacare. This mandate is the Holy Grail for the left – who see contraception and abortion as key to their Progressive agenda. The problem is, there are costs associated with this so-called ‘right’ – both moral and economic.

So certain religious organizations, many of whom generally side with Democrat politics, are up in arms over the fact they are being forced by the government to pay for services that violate their religious beliefs. So organizations who were generally supportive of Obamacare on compassionate ground now want to oppose certain parts of the mandate they don’t like.

The Obama administration thinks it can be so clever to offer an ‘accommodation’ - Women get free contraception but the objecting organizations don’t have to pay for it. In this magical fantasyland, insurance companies will simply give it free to the female employees of that organization.

If we stick with this fairytale, we can only believe one of two things: insurance companies will give it free and not raise the coverage of the objecting religious organizations, thereby causing everyone else’s premiums to increase so we can subsidize the religious objection. Or, the insurer will play the game of increasing the employers cost of insurance while claiming not to charge for this coverage, but give it upon request anyway.

So either way, Obamacare and the Contraception / abortion mandate violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution. If the cost of the insurance to these employers increases commensurate with the cost of contraception services, then the government is forcing a religion to abandon its tenets and adhere to the government’s dictates, a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. If the cost of insurance does not increase, then these religions are being given preferential treatment, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

By looking at this in such a narrow situation, it brings to light the much larger problem. One hopes that the Catholic Church in America and the other religious groups who have a problem with this contraception issue will understand the big picture. Just as important, one would hope that those who generally support big government solutions would see that empowering the Government through large mandates can just as easily infringe upon liberties that they would prefer to see:

The later is unlikely, because the Progress mantra is big government is the only thing capable of solving problems. But a government large enough to grant you ‘rights’ is also large enough to take your liberty away.

Copyright 2012 Reprint permitted with the following citation:
TJPaine
Un^Common Sense
Dedicated to the Advancement of Americanism
http://uncommonsense-tpaine.blogspot.com/

Follow me at http://twitter.com/tpaineus

Yawn and move on

President Obama Delivered a Campaign Speech, not a Plan

Last night, President Obama delivered a campaign stem winder disguised as an address to a Joint Session of Congress on the economy. The ruse was he was introducing a new job bill that would end the recession and put Americans back to work. In fact, in true campaign speech style, he had an oft repeated audience ‘chant line,’ replacing his tired ‘yes we can’ with ‘pass it now.’

No doubt the ‘smartest men in the room’ campaign people who run the Obama White House think they were being so clever. Now Obama can go out on the road, giving a tired stump speech with his SEIU and Teamster thugs in the audience echoing his chant of ‘Pass it now.’ The wizards of smart then will be able to point to the ‘do nothing, obstructionist’ GOP Congress as the reason the poor, beleaguered President hasn’t been able to turn the economy around.

There are many flaws with this half-baked political calculation. Some of these miscalculations include: this is simply a rehash of the same tired ideas that have failed to invigorate the economy to date; the American people have no appetite for another half trillion in debt to line the pockets of teachers unions, only to find out again that , oops, there really are no shovel ready jobs. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…

His campaign geniuses are trying to run a replay of the 1994 Clinton – Dole campaign. In that race, a GOP controlled House and Senate had thwarted the President, shut down the government, and fought the President every step of the way. Does ‘political circus’ sound familiar?

But this is where the fallacy lies, and where the brilliant plan is foiled by some pesky facts. Mr. Obama will not be running against Congress in 2012, try as he might. In 1994, Mr. Clinton was in essence running against Congress. Bob Dole was the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, and so was the face of the Congress. When Clinton railed against the GOP obstructionists, Bob Dole was the face of that obstruction. It was a Zero Sum Game.

Whoever the nominee is for the GOP next year, he is not likely to be associated with the Congress. Among the front-runners, only Michele Bachmann is a current member, and even she has successfully bucked the leadership and is running as a Tea Party ‘outsider.’ So if Mr. Obama plays the ‘obstructionist Congress’ card, the GOP nominee can trump it with the ‘we need a leader who can make Washington work’ mantra.

But Bill Clinton was popular and the economy was in good shape. Mr. Obama is not popular, with Gallup approval numbers in the high thirties or low forties. And the economy, well, 9.1% unemployment and a flat GDP growth tell another story entirely.

So we can look forward to rallies in the near future with adoring crowds chanting ‘Pass the Bill’ over and over. But we won’t be fooled again. ‘Son of Stimulus’ needs to be not only defeated, but ignored. The GOP needs to pass its own plan and challenge the Dems in the Senate up for reelection to send it to the President.

Now is the time for bold measures, not petty campaign speeches. Yawn and move on.

Copyright 2011 Reprint permitted with the following citation:
TJPaine
Un^Common Sense
Dedicated to the Advancement of Americanism
http://uncommonsense-tpaine.blogspot.com/

With Friends like the United States, Who Needs Enemies?

In Libya, the US once again fails to stand with people it claims to support.

One of the most surprising aspects of the revolution in Egypt was the speed with which the transition occurred. A relatively small number of protestors gathered, calling for the ouster of long time President (dictator) and Western Ally Hosni Mubarak. Almost immediately, the US government, including President Obama began calling for Mubarak to step down. It was all over in less than three weeks.

There is no doubt that Mubarak would not be gone had it not been for his ‘friend’ the US showing him the door. After waffling initially (and throughout the process), the Obama administration adopted a Mubarak must go strategy. Public pressure (and no doubt much greater behind the scene pressure) was applied to Mubarak and the members of the military. Most likely, threats of pulling US aid were made, and our longtime ally was gone.

Contrast this to the reaction of President Obama and his administration to the pro-democracy protests in Iran in 2009. There is little doubt that the protestors were inspired by the President’s word in the Cairo speech calling for greater freedom throughout the Muslim world. The opposition forces surely thought they had a friend in the US. But as this author noted at the time (http://snipr.com/27h7lx), Obama stood by idly, not wanting to ‘meddle’ in Iran’s politics. With no true support from the US and the west, and after an initial flurry of coverage, near radio silence by the mainstream media allowed the dictatorial regime in Iran to enact a brutal crackdown, crushing the opposition while their ‘friends’ in the US said and did nothing.

But one need not even go back to 2009 to see this administration’s willingness to support dictators who are not friends of the United States. President Obama threw a gala state dinner for China’s President Hu Jintau. There was no need to tarnish such a grand celebration with confrontation on human rights issues. When asked about China’s human rights record, about all President Obama could say is that China ‘has a different form of government’ than we do. Really? Such harsh words will surely bring about changes in the dismal human rights record of the very undemocratic Peoples Republic I am sure.

Now we are seeing the seeds of democracy growing throughout the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East. Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan and others have massive pro-reform movements, and protests by the people against their repressive governments, and the US seems to be content to sit this out. Even thought we couldn’t wait to show our ‘friend’ Mubarak the door.

Libya is the most shocking case. Obama has stated that ‘Ghadafi must go,’ and the administration has very tentatively backed the rebels. But while we dither (Obama has had more rounds of golf than words or actions on Libya) the rebels that we professed to be ‘friends’ of are being slaughtered by the superior forces loyal to one of the most brutal dictators in the world, and one that is clearly an enemy to the US.

The author is not naïve enough to believe that what we are seeing is simply small d democracy in action in these cases. There is little doubt that pro-extremist Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and others are using and fomenting these rebellions for their own purposes. But the fact cannot be overlooked that these movements in countries like Libya would remove a clear enemy of the West in Ghadafi.

So the message seems to be clear: if you are a friend of the US, we are happy to abandon you. But if you are an enemy of the State like Iran or Libya, or if we need your cash and cheap goods like China, we will do nothing to upset the status quo.

With friends like the US, who needs enemies? Just ask Mubarak or the protestors in Iran and Libya. And let’s not be surprised when we find no takers in the Muslim world the next time we seek an ally to stick their necks out to support US anti-terrorism efforts or other policy priorites.

Copyright 2011 Reprint permitted with the following citation:
TJPaine
Un^Common Sense
Dedicated to the Advancement of Americanism
http://uncommonsense-tpaine.blogspot.com/