Campaign 2016 – President – Page 3

Earning my presidential vote: Second Amendment

This is the second of my series on the five candidates I am considering for President. (Feel free to work back from the beginning if you join midstream.)

Regarding the Second Amendment these are the actions and philosophies I am looking for, in five bullet points or less:

A philosophy that remembers the words “shall not be infringed.”
Selecting Supreme Court justices that will consistently uphold the original intent, and forcefully advocating for their confirmation.
Vetoing any attempt to restore the so-called “assault weapons ban” or any other leftwing-sponsored infringements.

Here are what the candidates think on the subject. Most often the information is gleaned from their website, but I tried to cite when it came from another source. As a reminder, the Second Amendment is worth a maximum of six points on my 100-point scale.

Castle: “The Constitution Party opposes what the government usually refers to as ‘gun control’ – and that is gun or ammunition confiscation, gun or ammunition registration and the restriction of semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines. We in the Constitution Party understand that armed people are free while disarmed people are slaves.” (party platform)

“I don’t believe in restrictions on the Second Amendment.” – except for convicted felons. (“Iron Sharpens Iron” radio program, 9-12-16.)

Hedges: “We support the right of citizens to own and to carry firearms for personal defense and for sport; we encourage instruction in gun safety.” (party platform)

Hoefling: The right of self-preservation and self-protection is inherent in all persons, communities and societies, which is why we fiercely defend the indispensable provisions of our Second Amendment. Liberty cannot be protected if the people have been stripped of the physical means of doing so. (party platform)

Johnson: On guns, Johnson described his record as New Mexico’s governor, where he championed concealed carry legislation that he eventually signed into law. He also vowed to veto any attempted reinstatement of the so-called “assault weapons” ban, arguing that it’s something of a false category, and that such efforts would create a new class of criminal comprised almost entirely of law-abiding gun owners. (interview with Guy Benson, Townhall)

McMullin: The right to bear arms is at the heart of the American experience. Patriots armed themselves to win our independence, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment confers this individual right to all Americans. As a CIA officer, Evan has carried arms to protect himself in warzones, and he supports the rights of all Americans to protect their homes, families and freedoms and to use firearms for sport, hunting and all other lawful purposes.

As president, Evan McMullin will never infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun-owners. Instead, he will respect the founding spirit of our country by ensuring that Americans have the ability to defend their families and enjoy their sporting traditions without government interference.

While defending the Second Amendment, we must also keep weapons out of the hands of those who would do us harm. The FBI’s terrorist watch list is an important tool for homeland security professionals, but it lacks transparency and due process protections. On its own, it is an insufficient basis to deprive Americans of their right to purchase and possess firearms.

There is also a compelling need to improve treatment for those with severe mental illness and to screen them more effectively. Improved mental health treatment is also essential because a majority of gun deaths are the result of suicide. Before an individual makes the decision to end his or her life, we must encourage a broader national effort to identify and treat mental illness, including depression and other conditions.

Despite the contentiousness of this issue, there are practical ways forward. With NRA support, Senator John Cornyn proposed a plan that would give the attorney general three days to determine if there is probable cause to prevent an individual on the watch list from purchasing a gun. Combined with an increased focus on getting the mentally ill the help they need, this is the kind of common sense solution politicians should be seeking.

Unfortunately, many in Congress prefer to grandstand rather govern. Sit-ins on the House floor are no substitute for leadership. In fact, this kind of stunt is precisely why Americans are so fed up with politics as usual.

Evan will reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and turn its purpose to assisting law enforcement in the solution of gun-related crimes rather than serving as a regulatory agency and back-door gun control organization embedded inside the Federal government. Evan will also seek 50-state reciprocity for concealed carry permits.

Ultimately, our nation is safest when weapons are out of the hands of terrorists and in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Under Evan’s leadership, the Second Amendment will be stronger and American citizens will be more secure. (campaign website)

***********

Darrell Castle has a pretty good philosophy, although I think restrictions on convicted felons are somewhat too broad. If he meant violent felons, then that is more logical since such criminals forfeit those rights for a prescribed period as part of their punishment. 5 points.

The Prohibition Party platform (which Jim Hedges is not on record as disagreeing with) is solid, but doesn’t address the excesses of the modern era. 4 points.

Tom Hoefling has a good statement as well, particularly when it comes to the philosophy of the Second Amendment. There just needs to be more meat; still it’s a tick better than the above. 4.5 points.

I don’t have any objection to what Gary Johnson said, but it’s interesting to note this was not one of the many issues Johnson discusses on his website – perhaps because his running mate is weaker on 2A issues. 5 points.

I have issues with anyone who claims they support “common-sense” gun control like Evan McMullin. I don’t see him as a change agent, particularly as he speaks of several areas of federal involvement. Will he truly stand up for the law-abiding gun owner? 3 points.

Next on tap is a discussion of our energy policy.

Earning my presidential vote: education

This is the first of what will be about a weeklong series on the five candidates I am considering for President.

Regarding education (and the other subjects henceforth) these are the actions and philosophies I am looking for, in five bullet points or less:

The sunsetting of the Department of Education by the end of the first term. Education is not a federal concern, but properly decided at the state and local levels.
Returning the college student loan program to individual banks, allowing the student a broader array of choices for paying for education.
Taking the bully pulpit on vocational education, homeschooling, and other non-traditional paths to success. College is not for everyone.
Encouraging states to drop the Common Core program in favor of tried and true methods of teaching, with fewer days of testing.
Being an advocate for school choice and “money follows the child.”

Here are what the candidates think on the subject. Most often the information is gleaned from their website, but I tried to cite when it came from another source. As a reminder, education is worth a maximum of five points on my 100-point scale.

Castle: “Education is a big problem. If I were president, the Federal Government would not be using the education system to corrupt our children. I want education to be local.

Every year we spend more money, and every year our kids seem to get dumber. Third World countries are beating us in math and science education, and it just gets worse and worse. We aren’t going to be able to change much if we don’t change how we educate our children.”

Constitution is silent on education, so it should be a state and local issue per Tenth Amendment. Would disband the Department of Education.

Would be in favor of Constitutional education in state and local schools.

Hedges: Free college for all, supported by taxpayers. “The Hedges/Bayes administration would assist each state in providing free higher education to all of its qualified citizens.”

10th Amendment makes states responsible for education. Schools should emphasize science, math, citizenship, history, and English. (party platform)

Would fund retraining for displaced workers, paid for via tariff. (party platform)

Hoefling: “The government schools have become God-free and gun-free. So, they are now, quite predictably, spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical free-fire zones. If you have children there, find a way, make any sacrifice necessary, to get them out of there before they are led to the slaughter. What could possibly be more important?”

“What do children need? Before anything else, they need love. They need truth. They need protection from the evil that is in this world. Can government bureaucrats give them any of those things? Not really. As George Washington rightfully said, ‘government is FORCE.’ It’s not love. It’s not caring. Only parents, the ones who were entrusted by God with the duty to raise up their children to be good, decent human beings and honest, patriotic citizens, can provide that, with the help of a responsible, caring community, in cooperation with good teachers. That’s the primary reason I continue to advocate for T.L.C., which is True Local Control, of our schools. The financial, governmental reasons for these reforms are very real as well, but the primary motivator for me is the restoration of the love, the nurture, and the protection of our posterity.” (from Iowa governor campaign, 2014)

Johnson: Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld believe nothing is more important to our future as a country than educating our next generations.

Governor Gary Johnson worked tirelessly as governor to have a more substantive discussion about the best way to provide a good education for our children.

He did so while working with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature and despite fierce opposition from powerful special interests. Knowing full well that the establishment would resist calls for change, he nevertheless advocated a universally available program for school choice. Competition, he believes, will make our public and private educational institutions better.

Most importantly, Governor Johnson believes that state and local governments should have more control over education policy. Decisions that affect our children should be made closer to home, not by bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, D.C. That is why he believes we should eliminate the federal Department of Education. Common Core and other attempts to impose national standards and requirements on local schools are costly, overly bureaucratic, and actually compromise our ability to provide our children with a good education.

Johnson and Weld believe that the key to restoring education excellence in the U.S. lies in innovation, freedom, and flexibility that Washington, D.C. cannot provide. (campaign website)

McMullin: The strength of the economy tomorrow depends on the strength of education today. In our high-tech economy, finding a good job depends more and more on having a good education. While our country has some of the world’s greatest universities, millions of students finish school with weak reading and math skills. Going to college keeps getting more and more expensive, while drop out rates are rising.

Evan McMullin believes that by empowering families and communities we can make sure that every child in America has access to a high-quality education. Mandates from Washington are not the way to reform education. The Obama administration’s heavy-handed effort to impose Common Core standards has demonstrated the need for a different approach. Meanwhile, federal loan programs are driving up the cost of a college education while poorly designed regulations prevent the emergence of new options for students.

American students have benefited greatly from a tradition of local control and decentralization for schools. However, there continue to be many poorly performing schools even in cities with very high levels of per-student funding. For example, New York City spends more than $20,000 per student, while Boston and Baltimore spend $15,000.

In struggling school systems, charter schools have become a powerful engine of innovation because they are not weighed down by the intrusive regulations that burden so many traditional public schools. Not every charter school succeeds, but charters as a whole are finally giving meaningful choices to parents whose children were once condemned to failing institutions. Still, access to charter schools is insufficient; right now, there are more than one million children on charter school waiting lists.

Students who do not have access to charters should have the option of vouchers that enable them to attend schools further away. By showing that schools cannot afford to take their students for granted, these alternatives should foster a healthy competition between schools to provide the best education.

Without great teachers, there can be no great schools. The teaching profession continues to attract hundreds of thousands of the most committed, caring, and talented college graduates. Schools should not hesitate to reward teachers on the basis of merit, in order to ensure that they stay in public schools. There also needs to be greater accountability for the small number of teachers who fail in the classroom or even abuse their students. Regrettably, teachers unions continue to protect these few failures instead of focusing on what is best for students.

Schools also need high standards to ensure that every student gets a first-class education. Common Core began as a state-driven effort raise the bar for K-12 education, yet the Obama administration used to federal funds to compel implementation. Rather than accept criticism, the administration sought to brand Common Core opponents as ignorant or worse. A believer in empowering both local and state government, Evan opposes Common Core and the heavy-handed effort to force it on hesitant communities.

Finally, Evan is a strong supporter of the right to educate one’s children at home. He would encourage states to make sure that home-schooled students are able to participate in school sports and electives so that all students are able to benefit from these activities.

Going to college or getting advanced training after high school is the surest path to a good job and a middle-class lifestyle. However, misguided federal policies are only increasing the number of students who leave college without a degree while being saddled with heavy debts.

By handing out more loans, grants, and credits in response to rising tuition, the federal government signals to universities that Washington will pick up the tab for runaway cost growth. Even worse, the government doesn’t hold universities accountable for students’ graduation rates or ability to repay their loans. To make sure that universities have skin in the game, they should have to repay a portion of the debt incurred by students who fail to graduate or default on their loans. To ensure that interests rates remain reasonable, the government has tied them to the yield of 10-year Treasury notes while capping the maximum possible rate at 8.25 percent, a policy that Evan supports.

Prospective students also deserve to know more about the institutions to which they apply; however, a 2008 law prohibits the federal government from collecting the information these students need. For example, students should be able to compare the graduation rates, post-college earnings, and loan default rates for different programs at a wide range of universities.

Prospective students also deserve more and better choices in the field of post-secondary education. In addition to two- and four-year colleges, students should have access to high-quality technical schools, online programs, and work-based learning in the private sector. However, the current model of accreditation makes it extremely difficult for students at non-traditional programs to qualify for federal aid. This prevents competition, which means that traditional colleges and universities don’t face any consequences for cost growth or poor student outcomes.

The principles of education reform are the same for K-12 and higher education. Students and families should have more choices. Schools should have high standards and be accountable for students’ performance. State and local governments should lead the way, while intrusive and misguided federal interventions should be rolled back. That is Evan McMullin’s vision for an education system that prepares American students to succeed in the economy of the future. (campaign website)

**********

Darrell Castle seems to have the right idea; however, I don’t have as many specifics as I would like to get from him. I think I can trust him to do much of what I would like to see being done, but until it’s in writing I think I can only give him partial credit. 3 points.

There is a direct contradiction with Jim Hedges, who advocates free college while his overall party platform dictates a return to the states. For that reason, I cannot give him any points. 0 points.

As time goes on and I hear more from Tom Hoefling, I think I would have more to go on than I have to date. One problem is that most of the educational philosophy I’ve found is from his run for Iowa governor, which is a completely different scope. I think he would be similar to Castle, but for now I can only give him partial credit compared to Darrell. 2 points.

Gary Johnson has a very good philosophy on education insofar as eliminating federal involvement, and adds the school choice element. I will give him 3.5 points.

While he brings up a lot of good points, the problem I have with Evan McMullin is that he still advocates for federal-based solutions. Regardless of how you reform things at the federal level, the fact that a federal level remains means we will be combating the same issues in 20 years once bureaucracy grows back. 1 point.

Next topic will be the Second Amendment.

Earning my presidential vote (redux)

A week ago I promised you an update on my progress, so here it is.

Over the last seven days I have done quite a bit of research on the candidates, and have found out that some are easier to work with than others. I have more bare-bones information regarding the lesser-known candidates (Darrell Castle, James Hedges, Tom Hoefling) but on the other hand Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin made my job far easier with fairly concise information on their positions. Overall I have copied and pasted nearly 20,000 words and the majority of them are from the latter two.

But because I have so much material – not to mention my analysis – it appears I will spend much of this week on the topic and may break it down into eleven parts. The beauty of WordPress is that I can space them out easily enough so I can maintain the audience. So I may do two or even three posts a day for much of the next week, as I want to have this in the can before early voting begins. (Luckily a late Election Day also pushes early voting back, too. It will begin October 27.)

I also wanted to take some time and point out a couple things.

First of all, I had a nice comment from candidate Tony Valdivia regarding my last post. He now has a website up, and although it’s not as comprehensive on issues as others you can start to get a flavor of his candidacy. He seems like a good guy, although he and I probably disagree on the extent we need to move in a conservative direction.

Secondly, having “liked” the candidacy of America’s Party stalwart Tom Hoefling, I’ve found he’s extremely active on social media and constantly updates his Facebook page. Considering he and his party are not soliciting donations, the free media is about all he can get.

So just as a refresher, the candidates who are in my “Fab Five” are:

Darrell Castle/Scott Bradley (Constitution Party)
Jim Hedges/Bill Bayes (Prohibition Party)
Tom Hoefling/Steve Schulin (America’s Party)
Gary Johnson/William Weld (Libertarian Party)
Evan McMullin/Mindy Finn (independent)

The issues I will cover will be education, Second Amendment, energy, social issues, trade and job creation, taxation, immigration, foreign policy, entitlements, the role of government, and other intangibles. I look forward to fleshing this out and revealing my preferred candidate.

Decision America Tour 2016 with Franklin Graham

By Cathy Keim

Editor’s note: We are fortunate indeed that Cathy attended Tuesday’s event in Annapolis and filed a first-hand report with her observations. Maryland was the third-to-last stop on this 50-state tour, which began way back in January and stopped in Dover back on their primary election day, September 13. The final stop is Wednesday in North Carolina.

Pray. Vote. Engage.

Tuesday I joined about 50 other folks from Salisbury on a bus sponsored by the Salisbury Prayer Breakfast Committee to attend the Franklin Graham rally in Annapolis. Jack Savage was our intrepid leader. We pulled out of the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center parking lot at 8:30 in the morning and headed north.

We assembled on Lawyer’s Mall with a crowd that swelled to over three thousand and began to spill into the street. Volunteers were handing out American and Christian flags. It was a well-organized event. There were several Christian schools in attendance. It was good to see the smiling, young people.

Dennis Agajanian warmed up the crowd with his exceptional guitar picking and then led the crowd in some traditional hymns including How Great Thou Art, which has a long history in the Billy Graham crusades. The crowd was enthusiastic and sang robustly.

Franklin Graham came to the podium and immediately led off with, “Our country is in trouble.” No political party, nor any individual can turn it around – only God can do it. As a nation we are spiritually, racially, economically, and politically divided. We need to pray.

The he turned to Nehemiah 1 and explained how the Jews had been carried off to exile in Babylon as slaves. God had brought judgement upon their nation because they didn’t repent from their sins. Nehemiah was a slave in the king’s palace in Babylon. He heard about how the remnant of Jews left in Jerusalem were suffering because the walls were broken down.

Nehemiah petitioned the evil pagan king for permission to return to Jerusalem and the king granted it. There were enemies at every hand determined to thwart the rebuilding of the walls, but Nehemiah persisted and in 52 days, the walls were rebuilt.

Walls are meant for protection. Gates can be opened or shut depending on the need. Our moral walls and gates are down and any type of wicked thought and activity and teaching can come and go. Our educators, big business, politicians and – sadly to say – many of our churches are more concerned about profits and political correctness than they are about God’s truth and His righteousness. Nehemiah fasted and prayed and confessed the sins of himself, his people, and his fathers.

He confessed the sins of his nation. When we consider the sins of our nation, where do we even begin?

Graham encouraged us to hold hands and pray for the sins of our nation as each of us felt moved, then asked those in the crowd to confess their personal sins. He added that he didn’t fully understand the father’s sins, but he encouraged us to pray and confess for the sins of our fathers. Next Graham prayed for Governor Hogan, Lt. Governor Boyd Rutherford, for the workers in the capital, and for our law enforcement officers.

Then he gave an explanation of the gospel message that Jesus Christ came to save sinners. It is only through Jesus Christ that we can find salvation. Not only does our nation need healing, but our individual hearts need healing. Graham stressed that God loves us, but we have a problem called sin: a disease of the human soul that separates us from God. God is a holy and just God. As a human race, we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.

“But God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16.

Then, being a technological age, Graham invited anyone who had just prayed for new life to text 21777 and type in the word “Decision” so that literature would be sent to you.

After his religious message, Graham pivoted to more of a historical reminder. He recalled that when he was growing up everybody was worried that “the Commies were coming.” During his grade school years his school had drills where you got under your desk in case of nuclear bombs. He pointed out that hiding under your desk was not very helpful, but we practiced anyway. We had bomb shelters with food that was to last for 40 years. It as inedible, but it would last. Then the Berlin Wall came down and secularism came in and there was no difference between secularism and communism because both are godless.

We removed the Ten Commandments and prayer from our schools. Patriotism and the pledge of allegiance are out. Our kids have no idea what is right or wrong.

We have been lied to about the separation of church and state. That whole discussion was about protecting the citizens from State sponsored religions. He said that the Grahams came from Scotland, where the Anglican Church was the state-sponsored religion of the English kings. They tried to force the Scots to be Anglicans, but the Scots said they had no Lord but the Lord Jesus Christ. So the English kings cut off their heads even before ISIS. The ancestors of Billy Graham came to America for religious freedom.

Today the secularists are trying to change our understanding of freedom of religion. For generations we knew the meaning of the term was that you can live your faith freely, and share it as desired. This has devolved into a concept of freedom of worship, meaning that you can worship in the confines of a church only. You cannot live out your Christian faith in the world.

We need Christian men and women to run for office. Look at your candidates in the presidential race. Graham succinctly assessed that, “it has been interesting this year.”

But it isn’t only about the presidential election. We need to vote thoughtfully on the local level and we need to encourage Christians to run for office. Christians should run for the school board, but they should come ready to fight because the enemy is poisoning our children’s minds. Progressives – which is just another word for atheist – get pornographic books onto 7th grade reading lists. Note that if you fight back, the progressives will call you intolerant. Smile and say no.

We must take our schools back as we are losing our nation.

The church must wake up. Pray and get involved: in the last election 20 to 30 million evangelicals stayed home. People complain about the rigged voting, added Graham, but if 30 million more voters showed up, they couldn’t rig that election. He mentioned the 2008 Coleman/Franken Senate race in Minnesota that was decided by 220 votes sending the vile, anti-God Franken to the Senate. (Editor’s note: it should be pointed out that Norm Coleman led on election night – a large number of questionable absentee ballots “found” during the recounts put Franken on top. Note that Minnesota had a radical Democrat Secretary of State in charge of that election, too.)

Graham then asked the people to take his Pledge to God and Country:

Honor God at home.
Honor God in public.
Honor God with my vote.
Pledge to pray faithfully for my country.
Register to vote.
Pledge to engage in my community and run for office if God leads.

Graham asked that those who take the pledge text “America” to 21777 to receive access to a digital copy of Decision magazine’s election special.

Graham closed with this exhortation: Our job as Christians is to make the impact of Christ known to our fellow citizens. Be an advocate for God’s truth. Turn our country back to “In God We Trust.”

Dennis Agajanian led the crowd in God Bless America and America to close the event.

Well, that was an overview of what was said at the rally yesterday, at least as best I could take notes. I had no complaints with anything that Franklin Graham said. It is certainly true that no matter who is elected president next month, that person will not be able to fix America. They may help or hurt our country, but they will not be able to “fix” it. Our walls are down and we are sinking under the flood of ills that besiege us.

Our current presidential race is the prime example of where our low morals have led us. All the people that are moaning that this is despicable should ask themselves what else can we expect when we have turned our backs on all that is good and noble and true and have encouraged the basest type of behavior in our citizens.

It is time for us to begin our long march to retake our culture. We have allowed the progressives free rein in our schools, our culture, our churches. We must stand for the truth. It will not be easy as the truth is not respected nor sought by many. But stand we must.

I’m going to close with several photos I took at the event.

Postscript:

As editor, I concur with Cathy’s assessment.

And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:30-31, KJV)

Christians, it may be uncomfortable and you may lose some worldly things, but it’s time to make up the hedge.

Earning my presidential vote (part 1)

As you likely know, I’m not supporting either of the two major party candidates on the ballot. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are flawed personalities who I find untrustworthy and feel would do damage to a concept I believe in: a federal government properly restrained by the Constitution and conducted in accordance with traditional Judeo-Christian values.

So that leaves me with a lot of choices – in fact, there’s not just the four who are on the ballot in Maryland but (as of this writing) 42 write-in candidates. Now some just want attention or are crackpots, so I have eliminated those who have not selected a vice-presidential running mate. After doing so, there are ten remaining – all four on the ballot and six write-in hopefuls. I’ve already eliminated Trump/Pence and Clinton/Kaine, so that leaves eight. In this phase I will eliminate the ones who would not be obvious choices.

On the ballot we have the Libertarian Party, which is represented by former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and his running mate, former Massachusetts governor William Weld. Obviously I have a significant amount of libertarian views, but there are areas I have concerns with them. However, I know enough about where they stand to advance them to round 2.

On the other hand, the Green Party, which is represented by Dr. Jill Stein and running mate Ajamu Baraka – who incidentally was selected over Maryland’s Green Party U.S. Senate candidate Margaret Flowers and former U.S. Senate candidate Kevin Zeese – is far, far, FAR too far to the left for my consideration.

So that’s the folks on the ballot. But what about the six write-ins?

The Constitution Party is represented by Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley, and simply based on the name and philosophy of fealty to the Constitution will move forward.

James Hedges and Bill Bayes represent America’s oldest third party, the Prohibition Party. It has an interesting platform that combines a number of very conservative viewpoints on some issues with a far more progressive approach to others, which is reflected in the candidacy of Hedges. I think it will merit further study, although they may well not be my first choice.

Lynn Kahn (and running mate Kathleen Monahan) tried to get on the Maryland ballot as independents, but could not reach a sufficient number of signatures to do so. Overall, the biggest problem I see with Kahn is one of philosophy: she seems to believe that government can be fixed to be more efficient and accountable through a number of methods, but I believe the government needs to be fixed by the Constitutional means of rightsizing government. To me, her ideas are not the fix we need so this ticket is out.

In the little bit of time I have looked through their platform, I believe Evan McMullin and Mindy Finn have a good chance at securing my vote, so I will advance them pending my further research. Because they are write-in candidates, it may not matter that the person listed by the Board of Elections as VP candidate (Nathan Johnson) is not the person McMullin intended to be his running mate, although it is a rookie mistake.

I think Marshall Schoenke and James Mitchell are very honest and forthright people who earnestly believe they are statesmen, with a God-fearing (if somewhat muddled populist) platform. But they have a huge problem: because both reside in Illinois, they are ineligible under the Twelfth Amendment as I read it.

So despite the fact the website has some pretty good music on it (Schoenke is a professional musician) I have to eliminate them from further consideration.

Tony Valdivia and running mate Aaron Barriere are political neophytes. Valdivia’s introduction stressed campaign finance reform, but he doesn’t have a website to check his issues out, which is a drawback for me. Basically the story seems to me that he decided over the summer the top two choices weren’t to his liking so he decided to run himself and has secured write-in positions in a number of states besides Maryland. It’s a nice story, but from the few minutes with which I listened to what he had to say it seemed like he’s more centrist and populist than I would prefer. So he is out.

I also have a dark horse in the race who announced he has filed as a write-in candidate in Maryland as of today, one which was suggested to me so I will look into their platform as well: Tom Hoefling and Steve Schulin of America’s Party. What I’m interested in seeing is whether there is anything they offer beyond their position on social issues to address the other concerns I have.

This means my final five, which I will begin studying more in earnest, represent four parties and one independent: the Libertarian Gary Johnson, the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle, the Prohibition Party’s James Hedges, Tom Hoefling of America’s Party, and independent Evan McMullin. As I did for the GOP candidates, I will focus on ten key issues: education, Second Amendment, energy, social issues, trade and job creation, taxation, immigration, foreign policy, entitlements, the role of government, and other intangibles.

I think I can do this in a week, so look for an update seven days hence.

Some quick impressions on Trump’s bimbo eruption

The firestorm of protest over leaked eleven-year-old remarks by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has roiled the race, with a handful of Republicans withdrawing their endorsement and others wringing their hands as this story launched just in time to get certain coverage at the Presidential debate tonight.

So here are a few bullet points and stream-of-consciousness thoughts on the situation.

Someone had this tape laying around just waiting for the proper moment to release it, and that person obviously supported Hillary Clinton. Had this come out in February we may have had a completely different nominee so this is a good reinforcement for the theory that the media – once again – orchestrated the campaign with the assistance of Hillary’s supporters to make sure the GOP nominated its weakest candidate.
Whether this is locker-room banter or not is irrelevant. It seems the Republicans I know are bending over backwards to tell me this is a common thing, and men often talk this way in their unguarded moments. I’m not going to argue that point, but shouldn’t we demand a little more from our candidate?
And since when has it been appropriate to refer to women in such a way? Does “never” ring a bell?
This argument often goes on to discuss either the fact that Bill Clinton was a sexual predator or that Hillary Clinton has done far worse criminal acts during her adult life. But this isn’t relevant to me, nor should the fact it’s 11 years old be an excuse. We don’t have evidence that Trump’s apology was more than half-hearted nor can we say he’s contrite over the fact he’s sought to sleep with other married women while married himself. Again, should we not expect higher standards from those we call on to be leaders?
Two weeks ago, before the first debate, Donald Trump had caught up to or passed Hillary Clinton in the polls. Since then not only is he suffering from the subpar performance in his first go-round against Hillary but he now has to deal with this issue. The lack of preparation for his campaign has really shown.
Yet those people who believe we need to replace Trump on the top of the ticket are going to have a rude awakening. People are already voting, ballots have been printed, and in general it is too late to change. A plurality of GOP (?) voters chose Trump, and at every juncture where this could have been prevented it wasn’t. I’ve said this before: you break it, you bought it.

Unless the current trends cease – and it will be very interesting to see the polls come Monday and Tuesday – we may begin to see an electoral bloodbath. Last week saw Trump slip behind in Ohio and Florida, where he had been leading. Soon he may be down to those states which are reliably Republican, but don’t add much to the Electoral College. Those states that have voted Republican the last four cycles only contribute 180 electoral votes, while the same scenario for Democrats provides 242. (This is amazing when you consider who the Democrats ran in 2000 and 2004.) But even a few of those old reliable states are close in the polling, with a worst-case scenario rapidly becoming a 400-vote Electoral College win for Hillary as she racks up all the East Coast and West Coast states, the Rust Belt, and the desert Southwest.

So, yes, this is a bimbo eruption Hillary could benefit from – again. And it’s all the fault of people who decided that party trumped principle, the heavy dose of statism we’ve endured over the last eight years called for a heavier dose of populism (with a dash of revenge for perceived wrongs tossed in) and the bathwater needed to be tossed whether the baby was in it or not.

As I said before, Hillary became President the moment Donald Trump secured the nomination. All that’s left is the formality.

Striking down Obama’s climate legacy has its day in court

Commentary by Marita Noon

President Obama’s flagship policy on climate change had its day in court on Tuesday, September 27. The international community is closely watching; most Americans, however, are unaware of the historic case known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP) – which according to David Rivkin, one of the attorneys arguing against the plan: “is not just to reduce emissions, but to create a new electrical system.”

For those who haven’t followed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, here’s a brief history that brings us to up to date:

EPA published the final CPP rule in the Federal Register on October 2015.
More than two dozen states and a variety of industry groups and businesses immediately filed challenges against it – with a final bipartisan coalition of more than 150 entities including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 electric co-ops, 3 labor unions, and about a half dozen nonprofits.
On January 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a request for a stay that would have prevented implementation of the rule until the court challenges were resolved.
On February 9, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS), in an unprecedented action, before the case was heard by the lower court, overruled, and issued a stay that delays enforcement of CPP.
The Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear oral arguments before a three-judge panel on June 2, but pushed them to September 27 to be heard by the full court – something the court almost never does (though for issues involving “a question of exceptional importance” procedural rules allow for the case to proceed directly to a hearing before the full appeals court).

The court, which is already fully briefed on a case before hearing the oral arguments, typically allows a maximum 60-90 minutes to hear both sides and occasionally, with an extremely complex case, will allow two hours. The oral argument phase allows the judges to interact with lawyers from both sides and with each other. However, for the CPP, the court scheduled a morning session focusing on the EPA’s authority to promulgate the rule and an afternoon session on the constitutional claims against the rule – which ended up totaling nearly 7 hours. Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell Law, representing one of the lead challengers, told me this was the only time the full court has sat all day to hear a case.

One of the issues addressed was whether or not the EPA could “exercise major transformative power without a clear statement from Congress on the issue” – with the 2014 Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA determining it could not. Republican appointee Judge Brett Kavanaugh noted that the UARG scenario “sounds exactly like this one.”

Judge Thomas Griffith, a Bush appointee, questioned: “Why isn’t this debate going on in the floor of the Senate?” In a post-oral argument press conference, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) pointed out that the debate has been held on the Senate floor in the form of cap-and-trade legislation – which has failed repeatedly over a 15-year period. Therefore, he said, the Obama administration has tried to do through regulation what the Senate wouldn’t do through legislation.

“Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, one of Obama’s mentors,” writes the Dallas Morning News: “made a star appearance to argue that the Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional.”

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Bush appointee, concluded: “You have given us all we need and more, perhaps, to work on it.”

The day in court featured many of the nation’s best oral advocates and both sides feel good about how the case was presented.

For the challengers (who call CPP “an unlawful power grab”), West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who along with Texas AG Ken Paxton, co-lead the case, reported: “We said (then) that we were looking forward to having our day in court on the merits. Today was that day. I think that the collective coalition was able to put very strong legal arguments forward, as to why this regulation is unlawful, and why it should be set aside.”

But the case has its proponents, too, and they, also, left feeling optimistic. In a blog post for the Environmental Defense Fund, Martha Roberts wrote about what she observed in the courtroom: “The judges today were prepared and engaged. They asked sharply probing questions of all sides. But the big news is that a majority of judges appeared receptive to arguments in support of the Clean Power Plan.” She concluded that she’s confident “that climate protection can win the day.”

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) summarized the session saying that stakeholders on all sides were left “parsing questions and reactions, and searching for signs of which way the judges are leaning.” U.S. News reported: “The judges repeatedly interrupted the lawyers for both sides to ask pointed questions about the legal underpinnings of their positions.”

The decision, which is not expected for several months, may come down to the ideological make-up of the court: 6 of the judges were appointed by Democrat presidents and 4 by Republicans. Though, according to WSJ, Obama appointee Judge Patricia Millet “expressed concern that the administration was in effect requiring power plants to subsidize companies competing with them for electricity demand.” She offered hope to the challengers when she said: “That seems to be quite different from traditional regulation.” Additionally, in his opinion published in the Washington Post, Constitutional law professor Jonathan Adler, stated: “Some of the early reports indicate that several Democratic nominees posed tough questions to the attorney defending the EPA.”

Now, the judges will deliberate and discuss. Whatever decision they come to, experts agree that the losing side will appeal and that the case will end up in front of the Supreme Court – most likely in the 2017/2018 session with a decision possible as late as June 2018. There, the ultimate result really rests in the presidential election, as the current SCOTUS make up will be changed with the addition of the ninth Justice, who will be appointed by the November 8 winner – and that Justice will reflect the new president’s ideology.

Hillary Clinton has promised to continue Obama’s climate change policies while Donald Trump has announced he’ll rescind the CPP and cancel the Paris Climate Agreement.

The CPP is about more than the higher electricity costs and decreased grid reliability, which results from heavy reliance on wind and solar energy as CPP requires, and, as the South Australian experiment proves, doesn’t work. It has far-reaching impacts. WSJ states: “Even a partial rebuke of the Clean Power Plan could make it impossible for the U.S. to hit the goals Mr. Obama pledged in the Paris climate deal.” With Obama’s climate legacy at stake, the international community is paying close attention.

And Americans should be. Our energy stability hangs in the balance.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy – which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

That pesky electoral map

As you surely can tell I haven’t been writing nearly as much on politics the last couple months. I suppose having a Presidential election that reminds me of a nasty toothache will do that to you, and the root canal I need isn’t scheduled until the middle of November when the hoopla and post-mortems finally die down.

But one thing I have done as of late and shared via Facebook is see where states are polling and how that affects the Electoral College. In my last rendition Friday, the news wasn’t as promising for Republicans who pinned their hopes on Donald Trump. I’ll grant that the map is flawed in the fact that not all states are polled equally and it’s based on the last poll or groups of polls released and shared on the RCP website, but in this one Hillary enjoys a 313-219 lead (Iowa and its 6 EVs last polled a tie.) Out of the three I have done so far on a weekly basis it is the worst. The difference between this and previous maps can be traced to recent polling placing Clinton in the lead in Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada. Flip those 50 EVs, give Clinton Iowa, and do you know what? We have a 269-269 tie.

(In that case, the Constitution dictates that the House votes – by state – and the majority rules. Republicans have the larger delegation in a majority of states so they would likely vote for Trump.)

The trend, though, seems to be working away from Trump. It’s also worth considering that the most recent polls were compiled after the first debate so Trump’s subpar performance may be reflected in these new polls shifting momentum Hillary’s way.

So the question really comes down to whether the Republicans are more afraid of Hillary or the Democrats are more afraid of Trump. At this point, both candidates seem to have consolidated the support of their party regulars to the tune of 90 percent or more – the #NeverTrump movement has seen the defection of conservative heavyweights such as Mark Levin and Ted Cruz, both of whom succumbed to the aforementioned fear of Hillary and set principle aside for party. (I’m not as worried about Hillary, since my faith assures me God is really in control. So I will vote my principles – I just haven’t decided for whom, but I can assure you it won’t be for at least three people on the Maryland ballot: Clinton, Stein, and Trump.)

Thus, the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary groups are much like those who would not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008, or Al Gore in 2000. Trump is too moderate-to-liberal for principled conservatives and Hillary is too corporate and war-mongering for the progressive Left. But for now they are a far smaller part of the electorate than the large percentage who won’t vote because they think it won’t matter. In my life I have missed two elections – one in college because I didn’t get my absentee ballot back in time, and the other because I was moving shortly and it was a local election. I consider it a privilege, not to be taken lightly.

I’m pleased to see that Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party and Evan McMullin (a conservative independent) are on the Maryland list of write-in candidates – they are among those I would consider. A vote with conscience is never wasted, despite what those desperate to preserve the R/D duopoly may say. And who knows? If we had the 269-269 scenario with the exception of one state won by the longshot candidate, it is possible for that person to win – especially if he’s conservative and House Republicans thumb their nose at Reince Priebus. I probably have a better chance of winning Powerball, but otherwise the conservative, pro-liberty movement is in for rough times ahead.

If Donald Trump doesn’t want to be in the Al Gore position of winning the popular vote but losing in the Electoral College, it’s obvious where he needs to be.

Thoughts on Ted Cruz and his endorsement of Donald Trump

Let’s start off with my initial emotions on this announcement: disappointment, then resignation. I think this adequately captures both sides of the equation going forward, so allow me to elaborate.

I consider myself a limited-government conservative, or perhaps better described as a conservative with libertarian tendencies in a number of respects and areas. I often write about the idea of “rightsizing” the federal government down to a point where it does the minimum required of it in the Constitution, and this worldview affected my perception of the 2016 Presidential field. Ted Cruz was not my overall first choice out of the group, but of those remaining when Maryland’s day in the sun came back in late April he was – by miles – the best remaining choice in terms of my stated desire to reform the federal government in a Constitutional manner.

On the other hand, I had already heard and seen enough from Donald Trump to know that he wasn’t going to significantly improve the situation inside the Beltway. He had already backtracked and capitulated on enough campaign issues for me to see that he wasn’t going to be trustworthy enough to be the GOP standard-bearer. Although we went for a period of about 2 1/2 months before the Republican National Convention with the idea that there still were chances to derail the Trump train, the national Republican party (and Trump zealots) did their best to make sure that the “victory” Trump won (dubious at best, thanks to the number of open primaries) with just a plurality of the Republican vote would stand. In the end, many supporters of Ted Cruz as well as John Kasich were browbeaten into acceptance – the rest became the significant number of #NeverTrump folks out there, of which I was one. I would not accept Trump as the nominee, and my conscience would not allow me to work within an organization that promoted someone of dubious value to the conservative movement.

So when Ted Cruz stood at the podium of the convention and exhorted everyone to vote their conscience, I considered it a highlight of an otherwise pathetic coronation of The Donald as Republican nominee. My confidence in Trump upholding the planks of the GOP platform was about the same as the confidence that he could go a week without being on the media for saying something asinine – in both cases, about zero. The fact that the Trump people booed Ted Cruz off the stage was proof that they weren’t principled enough to stand before conservatives to defend their candidate when his bona fides were questioned.

Obviously I was not thrilled to see Cruz fall off the #NeverTrump wagon after all that transpired between Trump and “lyin’ Ted” during the primaries. (Of course, that assumes he was really ever on it.) But as Christians we pray to have our trespasses forgiven as we would those who trespass against us, and from the tenor of Cruz’s comments in his statement I think he has forgiven Donald Trump for what he said during the campaign as simple competitive rhetoric.

And Cruz has a number of political calculations he has to account for, too. After November the election season turns to the 2018 cycle, and Cruz is part of it as the junior Senator from Texas. Certainly there are already people in Texas politics smarting from the very fact that Cruz upset the establishment choice of former Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the GOP primary there four years ago, but former Gov. Rick Perry is one of those rumored to be considering a 2018 run for Cruz’s seat. Opponents cite the alienation of Trump voters as just another factor against Cruz, since there’s also the perceived blame for the 2013 government slowdown and the reputation for being a boat-rocking troublemaker that Cruz carries. (It should be noted that all that baggage was supposed to sink Cruz’s presidential campaign early on, but he outlasted most of the rest of the field that was supposedly more palatable to the electorate.)

For all his issues, it’s clear that for Ted Cruz to have a political future he had to modify his stance on Trump, and that was made more convenient by the unqualified Democratic candidate and the pledge he took to support the Republican. Over the next four years he is more useful in the Senate than martyred by his own rhetoric.

So let’s say Trump loses, Cruz retains his Senate seat, and the Clinton/Kaine team continues the damage done by Obama/Biden. The question is whether people will be as passionate about Cruz in 2020 or if they will consider him damaged goods? Assuming Trump loses and doesn’t wish to try again at the age of 73, the early favorite in 2020 has to be Mike Pence – just as the first rights of refusal went to Sarah Palin in 2012 and Paul Ryan this year. But there will certainly be a crop of those who didn’t grasp the brass ring this year looking to seize the nomination: I would strongly suspect that group includes Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal. All of them (except Kasich, who briefly ran in 2000) were first-time candidates – the political world seems to be that of just two strikes and being out, which eliminates guys like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee as old news. All but Kasich also seek the votes of strong conservatives, with Kasich being more of a moderate.

At this point I would still like to see Bobby Jindal make a 2020 run, as there’s little chance one of the 2016 crop knocks him off as the king of my hill. But someone new could strike my fancy or there could be a significant moderation in Jindal’s political views. Still, I would welcome Ted Cruz to the fray with open arms, knowing he had to do those things he may not have liked in order to keep his position of leadership in the conservative movement.

As for me, I remain #NeverTrump whether it’s politically damaging or not. Since politics is not my job I have little to lose but a lot to gain as I work to convince people of the benefits of limited government and support those inside politics who advocate it with actions, not words.

Blame for Ford’s Mexico move falls on Obama administration

Commentary by Marita Noon

Ford Motor Company made headlines on Wednesday, September 9, when, during an investor conference, CEO Mark Fields told attendees that it will invest $1.6 billion building a manufacturing plant in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, and will move all of its small car production there during the next two to three years.

The announcement was hardly news as Ford has been talking about the shift for more than a year. But in the throes of an election that has both candidates decrying companies that send jobs to low-wage countries, the decision was an invitation for attention. The next day, during a speech in Flint, MI, Donald Trump declared that it was: “horrible.” He’s previously called the proposed move “an absolute disgrace” and promised to punish Ford with a 35 percent tariff on cars made in Mexico that are then sold in America – which he believes will prevent them from moving production out of the U.S.

No one wants American jobs to go away – and Ford plans to build more profitable vehicles in the plants that currently produce the Focus and C-Max small cars. It claims it is not going anywhere and that the U.S. is its home. Reports do indicate that no jobs at the Wayne, MI, plant will be lost, as it will likely be converted to building the new mid-size Ranger pick-up truck and, possibly, a new Bronco compact sport-utility.

But there’s more to the story that isn’t generally being addressed.

Earlier this year, Fields told CNBC: “We’re always going to invest where it makes sense for business.”

Obviously, it no longer makes “sense” to invest in small car production in America. Most of the news surrounding the move to Mexico addressed the benefit of low-cost labor. According to the Detroit Free Press: “The industry has known for decades that domestic manufacturers struggle to make a profit on small cars.” In Slate’s MoneyBox blog, Jordan Weissmann says: “You can protest that Ford should find a way to consistently churn out profits while manufacturing small cars at home, but that’s easier said than done.”

The number of auto jobs in Mexico is up 40 percent from 2008, while they are only up in the U.S. by 15 percent over the same period. Reuters reports: “American automakers pay Mexican workers $8 to 10 an hour, including benefits.” By comparison, Ford’s labor costs average $57 per hour at home.

Even with the huge labor cost differential, American car companies’ trucks and SUVs are profitable to manufacture in the U.S. and they are the vehicles Americans want to buy – which should raise the question: Why do car companies make small cars when they can’t make them profitably? The answer is the story not being addressed in the current coverage of Ford. And this is where Trump could, possibly, change the outcome.

In a free-market world, companies that want to stay in business should stop activities that lose money and focus on those that make money. Yet the Big Three automakers continue to produce small cars that for years have made little, if any, money.

Business Insider explains: “If Ford is going to keep them around, it needs to address the profit problem. Americans don’t want to buy small vehicles at the moment (actually, they almost never want to buy small cars), so Ford’s only rationale for continuing to build them is to satisfy the more stringent fuel-economy standards in the future.” Those fuel standards are called CAFE – which stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. In short, it means that car companies can only sell the bigger vehicles that Americans want if it also produces cars that achieve very high fuel efficiency (including electric vehicles, in which Ford is investing heavily) that results in an “average” of the mandated miles per gallon – which is now 54.5 by 2025.

Merrill Matthews, Ph.D., a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation, blames the Ford move on, along with other draconian government policies, the CAFE standards: “The CAFE standards, which began in 1975, require auto manufacturers to meet government-imposed fuel economy standards across a fleet of cars. In order to meet those standards, which have been dramatically increased under President Obama, carmakers have to make light, inexpensive cars with high fuel economy to offset their trucks and SUVs with lower fuel economy. And electric cars really help their fuel economy balance. So the companies make minimally or even unprofitable small cars and electric vehicles so they can sell their popular and profitable large products – and hope for a profit in the end. By moving their small cars to Mexico, which has skilled but cheaper labor, Ford hopes to break even or make a little profit off of them.”

While the CAFE standards have increased dramatically under the Obama administration, and have also increased costs for consumers, most people don’t realize that they are not set in stone. Brad Plumer, senior editor for VOX.com outlines the options: “A new president can revise them, up or down. These CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rules are scheduled to come up for a midterm review in 2017. At that point, automakers may lobby to allow the standards to rise more slowly – particularly if sales of fuel-efficient vehicles have been sluggish due to low oil prices. Green groups, meanwhile, could push to make the standards stricter, or to have them keep increasing past 2025, to push vehicle emissions down even further.”

A President Trump could, perhaps, by promising to allow car companies to make whatever kind of cars they want to make, entice Ford to keep its money in America – though, admittedly, there are other factors (such as trade deals) that make manufacturing small cars attractive in Mexico. CAFE is just one of the many policies that make doing business difficult in America.

Revising the CAFE standards, which could reduce the cost of future cars and would remove government intrusion from vehicle selection, is something Trump can do that would make doing business in America “make sense” again for U.S. car companies. For all business, let’s make America a place where it makes sense to invest.

Is America forgetting 9/11?

Since the inception of this website I have written a 9/11-themed piece almost every year (I skipped 2006, which was the first year monoblogue existed.) If you’re interested in my personal 9/11 story I wrote it back in 2007.

But now that we have made it to year 15, I think the more apt paragraph is that which I wrote a year ago for the Patriot Post. This was part of my original submission but edited out for length. It’s still the truth, though.

As time passes away from the 9/11 attack, we tend to forget that those who best recall the horrific day as working adults are becoming less and less a part of the prevailing culture. The fall of the World Trade Center occurred just before my 37th birthday; in a week I turn 51. On the other side, those entering college this year were toddlers at the time and may not recall the shock we felt as adults.

Add another year to those totals (since I’ll turn 52 in a couple weeks) and realize that a child born on that date is most likely a high school sophomore now. Those in our high schools and college now were probably too young to remember their experiences that day – maybe the college seniors will think about how it affected their nap time in kindergarten (if they still do that anymore.) For them, the link is now their history books or their parents, not personal experience.

And as that generation comes to adulthood, they have also been soured on the patriotism and purpose that accompanied our fight against radical Islam, to the point where neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump wishes to commit a great deal of resources to the effort; rather they would use surrogates to do the actual fighting. It’s a far cry from the thousands who signed up for the military to take the fight to Osama bin Laden in the weeks after the World Trade Center and Pentagon were targeted. Rather than patriotism, kids now emulate the custom of kneeling during the National Anthem as a form of protest.

While we haven’t had an attack equivalent to 9/11 recently, the threat from radical Islam is still there. Since our last observance of Patriot Day Americans were gunned down by Islamist radicals in San Bernardino and Orlando, with other major incidents abroad in Paris, Indonesia, and Istanbul, just to name a few. The world remains a dangerous place and we live in interesting times.

The fact that Pearl Harbor Day and 9/11 occurred almost sixty years apart provides the opportunity to make one direct parallel. While Islamic terrorism is still a campaign issue 15 years after 9/11, we expended a lot of blood and treasure over the following four years after Pearl Harbor, with one of those war heroes successfully being re-elected President in 1956. There was a finality to World War II because the opponent was a governmental entity – once the regimes in Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany surrendered, the war came to an end. But in this case there may not be an end for generations. A decisive military defeat could hasten the process, but subduing this threat isn’t solely a military process, just a piece of the puzzle. By definition, terrorist attacks aren’t conducted by military forces but by civilians who may use military-style tactics.

So we once again come to the anniversary and remembrance of 9/11, an occasion that almost 1/4 of our population (73.6 million) has little to no memory of because they are under the age of 18. Some of the timeless images will remain, but the actual memories of how Americans were affected will be lost as those who were of Social Security age back then are passing away – this was the generation that fought in Korea and World War II, and we are losing them by the hundreds daily. The rest of us are getting older too.

Let’s just hope that we aren’t simultaneously losing our collective identity as a liberty-loving nation thanks to the threat presented by the terrorists. In the end, that may be the legacy of 9/11 we have to reject.

Part of the exodus

On Labor Day I normally post on something union-related, but today I have a different sort of union to ponder: the union between conservative activists and the Republican Party.

Among the items on my Facebook feed this morning was one from Dwight Patel, who is one of the financial movers and shakers in the Maryland Republican Party (note: I have transcribed these as written, grammatical/spelling errors and all):

If you are an elected Republican Central Committee member and you can’t bring yourself to Vote for our Parties (sic) nominee… Go resign

After the shouts of “Preach!” and “Word!” in response was this from Eugene Craig, who is the 3rd Vice-Chair of the MDGOP:

Elected members of the central committee were elected to build the GOP not tear it down with blind gang like loyalty to open racism. That is not the party of Reagan and Lincoln and I will protect every RCC member rights to do what’s best to build their local party and vote their conscience.

So Patel responded:

Eugene out (sic) bylaws speak of this… Hence many people have resigned over trump… It was the right thing to do… And you need not further the lefts talking points by calling Donald trump a racist.

Dwight went on to explain that Trump was among his bottom choices and he gave maximum or sizeable donations to others. I can vouch for the fact that Dwight is a significant donor – the resident of Montgomery County bought two tables for our Lincoln Day Dinner last year and brought several people across the bridge. It’s likely he will do so again this year.

As you likely know, I am one of the “many people (who) have resigned over trump.” I didn’t have to in accordance with the bylaws, but I chose to anyway. Simply put, as one who is conservative before Republican I could not back a man who I saw as detrimental to the conservative cause, in part because I found him lacking in trustworthiness and principle. Having no way of knowing just how many people have resigned over Trump as compared to regular turnover, though, I don’t know what sort of trend we have here. But it’s highly likely that most of those who have left over Trump are those who were on the conservative side of the Republican party – people I call the “principle over party” wing as opposed to the “party over everything” wing. (And then you have those caught in the middle based on the fear of a Hillary Clinton administration, which seems to be descriptive of Patel. I suspect they would be sorely disappointed with the lack of positive change that would come from a Trump administration – just more of the status quo of ever-expanding government but with the “Republican” imprimatur on it.)

But in speaking to Craig’s point about “build(ing) their local party,” the sad fact is that 64.6% of those voters in Wicomico County who showed up voted for Trump over a more Constitutional conservative choice in Ted Cruz and a more moderate choice in John Kasich. Perhaps if Maryland had voted earlier in the process many within the 64.6% would have backed other conservatives in the race but we will never know – I just have to deal with the data at hand, and to me it proved that our county voters may be the “party over everything” group. If that’s true, then many of my efforts in educating local voters have been for naught.

I will admit that Trump seems to be getting his campaign going in a better direction, and even with the possible pitfalls of the Trump University trial and allegations of financial ties to Russian and Chinese backers those pale in comparison to the headaches Hillary Clinton is dealing with as the e-mail and Clinton Foundation scandals – along with the rumors of serious health issues with which Hillary is afflicted – smolder in the background despite being ignored by the partisan media. And the other day I concocted a scenario in playing with an Electoral College map where Trump had a path to victory if he can make up just five points on Clinton in certain states. (Part of that involves getting Gary Johnson into the debates, which I support. Let Jill Stein come along and participate, too.)

But, to use an overused phrase, in terms of the conservative movement a Trump presidency would still be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Moreover, his base has been variously described as “nationalist populist” or “alt-right” while those who oppose those ideas are dismissed as “cuckservative.” I reject that description: I think I stand on the real conservative ground here based on my body of work – it’s you guys who need to get off the idea of using government to get even with your opponents. That makes you no better than liberals.

In this case I am not an unbiased observer, but the number in Maryland and around the country that have resigned from party-level positions based on Trump securing the nomination on a plurality of the vote – with some unknown number of Democrats switching over to goose the process for nefarious reasons – is less important than the conservative balance they brought to the Republican Party. Because of certain tasks I was generally given, I could not bear the idea of publicly having to show support for Donald Trump so I opted out.

I have read on many occasions that the Republican Party will soon go the way of the Whig Party, but the circumstances have changed significantly since the mid-19th century as Republicans and Democrats cooperated to make ballot access difficult, if not impossible, for other parties to secure. (The same goes for the Presidential debates, which are controlled a commission made up primarily by members of the two parties. It’s why people like me, who have some degree of agreement with the Libertarian and Constitution parties, stayed as Republicans – the others can’t win on a state and national level.) If the Republican Party ceased to be, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see the power-hungry Democrats take the opportunity to lock the process entirely. So it’s gut-wrenching to see the GOP self-destruct, but there’s the possibility this may occur.

The conservative fight has to go on, though. Like many of the others who left over Trump, I may just need some time to figure out my role.