Democrat Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders recently said our nation, “in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.” The fact is, Sanders and many liberals that like to say this about America’s Founding Fathers are wrong.
This great New York Times article destroys the myth that the founding fathers were racists and that our country was founded on racist policies. Published by the very liberal New York Times, no liberal can claim political bias in this article. It is factual and detailed in covering the process in which the South tried to instill slavery into the Constitution but were blocked by the Founding Fathers of this country. I highly recommend this article:
The Orange County Register recently published an editorial on the slow but sure loss of the rule of law in America. It should be read by all who are concerned with the direction this country is going. In one short article they discuss the amazing damage to the rule of law that has occurred in this country since the 1970s and particularly during the Obama administration. It describes how the law today is now something that can be molded by whoever is president into a heavy hitting ideological weapon. Liberals have cheered this on during the Obama administration saying the president has no choice but to do these things since Congress will block him if he doesn’t. Those cheers will change to shrill rage should a Republican win in 2016.
Let’s imaging for a moment that a Republican actually does become president in 2016 and that he (or “she” if the wonderful Carly Fiorina were to win) decides to use the executive power exactly as their predecessor has done:
First, they’ll pick an Attorney General who is himself or herself a partisan activist and who will protect both the president and anyone under them that shares their ideology regardless of whether or not they are actually breaking the law. Then the president will put into the IRS and other agencies new leaders who will use their power to punish those of the opposing ideology. They will be able to do so without worry of repercussion since any investigation would have to be approved by the Attorney General.
Next, the Republican president will be able to repeal Obamacare easily with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate. They will use the same reconciliation process that Obama used to pass it. And to those who say it’s too late because it will cause pain to millions who depend on Obamacare for coverage, the president will answer that they are just relieving America of a law that has never been popular and which forced millions out of coverage they were happy with in the first place.
The hesitation to use the “Nuclear Option” and other relics of past Senate restraint are now gone so the Republican president will use that lack of restrain the same way Obama and Harry Reid did to force through laws that previously would never have passed. The EPA will be gutted. The Obama administration has shown that the EPA in the hands of a liberal administration is too dangerous to be allowed to continue to exist. It will have to be dismantled to a point where it would basically have to be restarted from scratch by any future Democrat president. It’s a shame that an organization created by a Republican president to protect the environment became so corrupted by ideology that it must now be done away with completely.
The IRS is almost in the same boat as the EPA. A Republican president would never allow the IRS to target liberal groups and to actively work against the free American election process as President Obama did with Lois Lerner. But that does not mean nothing will be done to the IRS. No, the best way to counter the IRS so that it cannot be used as a political weapon is to permanently defang the agency with massive tax reform. A simplified tax code would remove most of the IRS’s investigative and punitive capabilities. It would also boost the economy in many ways. That’s a win-win for the next Republican president.
Then there’s the international policy. When is a treaty not a treaty? When the president of one ideology has a Congress controlled by the other ideology, that’s when! Forget the Constitutional requirements of passing a treaty through Congress. All you have to do is declare that it’s not a treaty. Then you can pretty much enact any foreign policy you want without worrying about Congress or that pesky Constitution. And don’t forget that the Secretary or State won’t have to worry about doing illegal. Hillary Clinton has already shown that a ideologically protective Attorney General can even shield Cabinet-level administration officials from investigation.
And this article would be dreadfully incomplete if we didn’t discuss the greatest tool the Obama administration used so effectively and that future presidents will wish to copy wholeheartedly: The threat to shut down the government! That’s right, the president can now tell the Congress that he or she doesn’t care a bit about their supposed Constitutionally empowered control of how tax dollars are spent. Congress will either pay for what the Republican president wants or he or she will not sign the spending into law. Then the cameras will show how evil Congress is for not “doing their job” in paying for the government. So a Republican president will now be able to push through and expensive border wall, Keystone pipeline, etc without too much trouble.
That’s of course assuming the media will cover a Republican president the exact same way they’ve provided cover for President Obama when he did the same thing. I almost couldn’t type that last sentence because I was laughing so hard at the idea of the media being fair to a Republican president. But even that doesn’t matter as much as it has in the past thanks to President Obama.
Despite the cover the liberal media has provided for the Obama administration again and again, this administration has shown utter disdain for the news media class. Instead of being “the most transparent administration in history”, we have had an administration that has closed out the media and created layers of secrecy like none before. A Republican president has in the past always known the media weren’t with them but they also knew they had to be somewhat kind and respectful to the news media in order to keep on message with the public. But with the Internet providing so many alternates and with the Obama administration example of how to close out the news media, a Republican president will not have to worry about the liberal media as they have in the past.
Basically, a Republican president will be able to use the powers of the Executive Branch, drastically enhanced as they have been in the Obama Administration, to push right wing ideology as far as they wish for four to eight years. And then the next Democrat will do the same in the opposite direction. How exactly does a country survive such drastic swings with pulling apart? The answer is that it doesn’t for long.
The death of 9 worshipers at a Charleston, SC church a few days ago is a tragedy. It is sad beyond measure that 9 innocents lost their lives to a deranged maniac. But while most of the country looks sadly at this incident and pray for the lost, a segment of the liberal political class is once again jumping on the tragedy to push forward their ideology.
Liberal commentator Bill Maher says that Conservatives are to blame for the mindset of those who do such horrible crimes. Hillary Clinton, who finds it hard to tell the truth, said we as a country have to face some “hard truths” about race and guns.
As former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. He was President Obama’s right-hand man at the time and he expanded on this comment saying “What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you thought you could not do before.” So once again liberals seeking restrictive gun control laws they know would never otherwise happen will use another tragedy involving a bad guy (a murderer) with a gun to restrict good guys (law-abiding citizens) from being able to own guns.
Once again it seems these liberals are incapable of understanding some basic facts: It is basic common sense (which is all too uncommon these days) that bad guys with evil intent are not going to let a law that says they can’t have a gun stop them from getting a gun. If you’re prepared to break the law by killing innocents, then you are definitely prepared to break a gun ownership law. Passing laws restricting gun ownership only makes it harder for the good guys (i.e. those who do obey the law) to get a gun.
This latest tragedy is another example of the fault in their gun-control logic. The maniac (I call him that since publishing his name just gives him the attention he craves) was reportedly given the Glock handgun he used in this henious crime as a birthday present. Background checks would never have prevented him from getting that gun. Are we to ban law-abiding fathers all over the country from giving guns to their law-abiding sons because a maniac committed this crime? That doesn’t seem very likely.
Unless we as a country want to change the Constitution and confiscate a few hundred MILLION guns in the United States, then the only option is to make sure it’s not hard for good guys to have guns so they can stop bad guys that have guns.