Category Archives: Republicans

Moore Defeat Marks End Of The GOP & More War Between Deplorables & ‘Detestables’

Boyd Cathey, Conservatism, Democrats, Elections, Republicans

By Dr. Boyd Cathey

Yesterday in Alabama the Republican Party lit the fuse that will blow it up and possibly destroy it. That auto-destruction has been in the making for some time; one could even argue that ever since the presidency of Ronald Reagan there’s been a just-below-the-surface death wish within the GOP. But the extremely narrow defeat of US Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, the reddest of “red” states, by a leftwing, pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage Democrat, Doug Moore, revealed that festering chasm, that unhealable division, that raging civil war, as never before.

Of course, there will be those who argue—and rightly, with some facts and reason—that the Moore candidacy and the issues swirling around him personally contributed mightily to the defeat. The all-of-a-sudden appearance of over a half-dozen women, claiming some form of sexual harassment, despite it having taken place—supposedly—forty years ago, took its toll in support for the judge. And the massive injection of hundreds of thousands of Hollywood pro-Jones dollars, and a frenetic get-out-the-black vote campaign, certainly helped do him in.

But, in the end, it boiled down to a vigorous and constant bombardment by fellow Republicans and by the elites. And it revealed the bitter and viciously unrelenting struggle between the “Establishment party”, the party of Washington DC and of Congress, of the big time lobbyists and major donors—and those millions of grass roots voters who for the past thirty years have more or less blindly followed them, and, at each election, have entered the voting booth to pull the GOP lever. In Alabama those elites, through a variety of factors, were able one more time to avoid electoral disaster.

“You have no other place to go—you have no other choice,” the refrain has always been. “It’s us, or those damnable socialists in the Democratic Party!”  And, so, millions in the grass roots have, docilely and continually, obeyed. And on rare occasions, a decent Republican has found his way into Congress, but their numbers were far and few between. Mostly, even the better candidates who arrived along the Potomac found themselves surrounded by the glittering temptations of money and power, or, if they resisted, veritable exile and being shunted off to some obscure role or responsibility. Who, indeed, could resist such enticements? After all, Senator Jesse Helms died nearly ten years ago…and there are few who could come close to his stamina and principles, or, for that matter, his ability to “play Washington and not be played by it.”

The so-called lessons about yesterday were already prepared and written weeks ago by the GOP establishment types. Here is their script: (1) Moore’s loss would be blamed on himself because  he was a flawed candidate (with totally unsubstantiated charges against him taking a toll), and (2) if those lowly “rednecky” voters in Alabama had only supported the more “moderate”—and establishment—candidate, Luther Strange, all of this could have been avoided.

The national GOP, thirty Republican US senators, and a goodly portion of the so-called “conservative” media never let us forget that.  From the pompously officious neoconservatives Marc Thiessen and Steve Hayes and other neoconservatives on Fox, to “conservative movement” journals like The Weekly Standard and National Review, the prepared refrain was the same: “If you had listened to us, if you had avoided the attempt to leave the ‘reservation,’ things would have worked out.”

“Mind your manners, you yokels, and let us make the decisions and run the country!”

Those Republicans—from the voluble US senators and House members to the various consultants and pundits, and those “conservative movement”  honchos—all those creatures of the Establishment “swamp,” feared a Moore victory and preferred, in effect, a Doug Jones triumph to having their power and authority challenged and compromised. True, they have had to deal with that great usurper, Donald J. Trump, and they are still grappling with how to approach him, at times begrudgingly going along, at times acting like the offended school marm, condescendingly telling him what to do and how to do it, warning him about his tweets, telling him to be “more presidential.” And attempting to sabotage his agenda if it did not suit them or if he did not listen to them. This latter strategy is the preferred one employed by Congress, where the president’s agenda is as popular as the measles.

They have their minions even scattered strategically within the administration, including possibly that most brain-dead of brain-dead has-been-but-wannabe power players, Nikki Haley.

Their refusal to support Moore, their withholding of support (including financial), their encouragement of efforts to undermine his campaign at every turn—the constant drum beat, the constant harping on “believe the women,” while certainly not the only factors, were still major ingredients in Tuesday’s loss.

But even worse were their public expressions of disdain and seething hatred, their upfront condemnations based on unverified, obviously political and trumped-up accusations, their consistently negative approach…they had to protect their rabbit hole on the Deep State preserve. It was that simple…and Roy Moore threatened that.

But what they have done, in effect, is not just manage to defeat Judge Roy Moore; after all, he is just one man, one controversial political figure in one Southern state. They have illustrated once again that, to quote John Milton’s Paradise Lost, they would “rather reign in Hell rather than serve in Heaven.” And so that increasingly public war—for that is what it is—between the “Deplorables” and those I would call the “Despicables”—now will rage even hotter and become even more severe.

Steve Bannon’s efforts are only a foretaste and a harbinger for what is to come.

 

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

Roy Moore: How Ethical Is It To Overturn The People’s Democratic Decision Via An Ethics Committee?

Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Government, Morality, Republicans, States' Rights

It isn’t.

By now you have to have noticed the ethical and moral corruption baked into the vaunted American system.

In the event Judge Roy Moore is elected in the Alabama special election by the people, The Establishment is waiting to unseat him and overturn the election via a Senate ethics investigation when he gets to Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters last week that he expects Moore will face a Senate ethics probe if he wins.

“If he were to be elected I think he would immediately have an issue with the Ethics Committee, which they would take up,” McConnell said.
Young, the Moore strategist, cast the Senate election Tuesday in Alabama as a referendum on President Donald Trump.
“This is Donald Trump on trial in Alabama,” Young said on “This Week.” “If the people of Alabama vote for this liberal Democrat, Doug Jones, then they’re voting against the president who they put in office.”
“It’s ground zero for President Donald Trump,” Young added. “If they can beat him, they can beat his agenda, because Judge Moore stands with Donald Trump, and his agenda.”

It’s unethical for a politburo to overturn The People’s democratic decision via a far-removed ethics committee. They do it anyway.

Comments Off on Roy Moore: How Ethical Is It To Overturn The People’s Democratic Decision Via An Ethics Committee?

FBI Director’s Statements Calculated To Poke The Finger In POTUS’ Eye

Donald Trump, Ethics, Government, Republicans, The State

How can President Trump expect to carry out his agenda of draining the swamp and slaying swamp creatures—or simply fulfill his promises to Deplorables—when his appointees are hostile to his mission and contradict him at every turn?

President Trump attempted to shine a light, in the combative tradition of his 2016 campaign, on the crooked Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Despite the  abominable recent conduct of the FBI, Director Christopher Wray chose to shed darkness with these pat statements about the FBI “protecting the American people and upholding the rule of law in all 50 states and in about 80 countries around the world.” (Is that the FBI’s constitutional mandate? Crap.)

“Let me start by saying that it is for me the honor of a lifetime to be here representing the men and women of the FBI,” he said. “There is no finer institution than the FBI and no finer people than the men and women who work there and are its very beating heart.”
When asked about Trump’s tweets over the weekend criticizing the FBI, Wray told Rep. Jerry Nadler, “there is no shortage of opinions out there.”
“What I can tell you is that the FBI that I see is tens of thousands of agents and analysts and staff working their tails off to keep Americans safe from the next terrorist attack, gang violence, child predators, spies from Russia, China and North Korea, and Iran,” he responded. “The FBI that I see is tens of thousands of brave men and women who are working as hard as they can to keep people that they will never know safe from harm.”

Wray’s poking of the finger in POTUS’ eye is emblematic of why the Trump presidency is imperiled.

We Live & Labor Under An Illiberal Administrative State. Is It Constitutional?

Constitution, Federalism, Government, libertarianism, Republicans

Libertarians have a healthy contempt for government agencies and department, most of which are not mentioned—and were not intended—by the Constitution. Republicans are responsible for the creation of quite a number of wealth-consuming, freedoms-gobbling agencies. Belatedly, they’ve discovered just how deeply crooked and dangerous is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a fact Republicans were less inclined to admit under Genghis Bush.

So does the Constitution authorize all of the many law-making departments under which we labor? Over to Laurence M. Vance onThe Constitution versus the Executive-Branch Departments“:

It is apparent from reading Articles I and II of the Constitution that six of the current executive-branch departments have no constitutional justification whatsoever for their existence, four of them are apparently authorized by the Constitution, three of them might possibly be authorized by the Constitution, two of them should be combined with one of the other departments, and one is missing.

The Post Office Department that existed from 1792 until it became just the Postal Service in 1971 is clearly authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 7, where Congress is given the power “to establish Post Offices and post Roads.” It certainly makes more sense to have a Post Office Department than some of the other cabinet-level departments that are clearly unconstitutional.

The departments of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security should both be subsumed under the Department of Defense, since that is what they relate to. We had military veterans for 200 years before the Department of Veterans Affairs was created in 1989. There is no reason that legitimate functions of this department could not be handled within the Department of Defense, instead of a bloated federal bureaucracy that is second in size only to the Department of Defense itself.

The same is true of the Department of Homeland Security. In only 10 short years it has grown to become the third-largest federal department. What is the point of having a Homeland Security Department if we already have a Defense Department? Any legitimate functions of the Department of Homeland Security (and they would certainly not include FEMA or the TSA), could and should be part of the Department of Defense.

There are three executive-branch departments whose constitutionality is dubious at best.

The only possible constitutional justification for the Department of Commerce is two mentions in Article I of the Constitution of Congress regulating commerce (Section 8, Paragraph 3 and Section 9, Paragraph 6). But if a cabinet-level department is needed to do that, then what did the government do without a Department of Commerce until 1903? The truth is that the government had no need of a Commerce Department until it started regulating commerce in an unconstitutional way beginning with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887.

The Department of Transportation can only barely justify its existence by appealing to the previously mentioned phrase in Article I of the Constitution giving Congress the power “to establish Post Offices and post Roads.” But that means that the Department of Transportation should be limited to just “post Roads,” not mass transit and aviation. And of course, establishing “post Roads” could be done under the auspices of a Post Office Department.

The Department of the Interior is mainly concerned with federal lands. It now includes agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Reclamation — the largest wholesaler of water in the country and the second-largest producer of hydroelectric power. But if ever we needed a Department of the Interior it was when the United States acquired the Northwest Territory (present-day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota) after the Revolutionary War and purchased Louisiana from France (all or part of 15 current U.S. states).

And since there is no reason for the U.S. government to own more than 25 percent of all the land in the United States (with ownership exceeding 50 percent in some states), and no constitutional authority for the government to have anything to do with fish and wildlife or supplying water and power, it would be more constitutional to have one of the Department of the Interior’s agencies — the Bureau of Indian Affairs — elevated to cabinet-level status and most of the other functions of the department eliminated. But of course, the State Department could handle U.S. relations with the Indian tribes without having a separate bureau or department.

The Department of Defense can be justified by appealing to several paragraphs in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Paragraph 11 gives Congress the power “to declare War.” Paragraph 12 gives Congress the power “to raise and support Armies.” Paragraph 13 gives Congress power “to provide and maintain a Navy.” Paragraph 14 authorizes Congress “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Paragraphs 15 and 16 authorize Congress to call forth, organize, arm, and discipline the Militia. What cannot be justified by the Constitution is a Department of Offense, which is what the Defense Department has become. All nondefense spending (foreign wars, foreign bases, foreign occupations, foreign interventions) should be eliminated and the department shrunk in size.

The Department of Justice seems reasonable, since the federal crimes of counterfeiting, piracy, and treason are mentioned in the Constitution. However, given that Congress didn’t see the need for a Justice Department until 1870, that most federal crimes should just be state crimes, that the abuses of the FBI and federal prosecutors are well known, and that the Justice Department agencies of the DEA and the ATF shouldn’t even exist, the Justice Department should be scaled back considerably.

The Department of State seems to be the most logical department for a government to have. It was the first federal department established under the Constitution. Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution mentions making treaties with, and sending ambassadors to, other countries. The Department of State is one of the smallest executive-branch departments. However, it could be much smaller if U.S. foreign policy was not so interventionist.

The Department of the Treasury can also be justified by appealing to several paragraphs in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Paragraph 1 gives Congress the power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Paragraph 2 authorizes the Congress “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Paragraph 5 gives Congress the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” And then there is Section 9, Paragraph 7: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” What cannot be justified by the Constitution is Congress’s creating the Federal Reserve System. Any legitimate functions of the Fed should be handled by the Treasury Department. The main problem with the Treasury Department, of course, is that it includes the IRS. Abolish it and the Treasury Department would be much more acceptable.

The departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor cannot be justified in any way by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to have anything to do with agriculture, education, energy, health, housing, or labor? Much of the welfare state is maintained by these departments. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for WIC, SNAP (food stamps), and farm subsidies. The Department of Health and Human Services handles Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Department of Housing and Urban Development facilitates wealth redistribution by providing various kinds of housing assistance.

All of that means that if the Constitution is going to be followed, of the 15 cabinet-level executive-branch departments, only 7 can be justified in some way by the Constitution, and there really need to be only 4, or 5 if the Department of the Post Office is restored.

The problem is a simple one: Few previous congressional candidates or current members of Congress from either party have any desire to follow the Constitution in every respect or even the majority of the time.

Republicans are the worst because they talk about the Constitution the most. They have talked about eliminating the Department of Education since the days of Ronald Reagan, but they have never done anything but raise its budget. They criticize welfare, but won’t touch the biggest welfare programs in the federal budget — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They condemn Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), but accept Bushcare (the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act).

The U.S. government is a monstrosity. From a libertarian perspective, the Constitution is an imperfect document. However, if the federal government actually followed its own Constitution, it would be a tremendous improvement over the bloated, expensive, intrusive, and authoritative government we have now.