Considering A Presidential Run, Lindsay Graham Shows Stunning Oblivion On The Constitution

On FOX New Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed two possible 2016 candidates for president of The United States in 2016, who displayed a stark indifference to the most fundamental principles of The Constitution. Democrats of course make rather a diversion of imposing unconstitutional policy on America. Senator Bernie Sanders describes himself as a Democratic Socialist Independent. He displayed the time-honored leftist braying about unequal distribution of wealth and “taking on” the corporations that are not “paying their fair share” of taxes. Regardless of how inevitably history shows the actions of these leftist warriors come to failure, the appeal of envy to voters is an incurable human pathology. To some extent or another, these campaigners are at least as concerned with power to control society as they are about equal distribution of income. Even more temperate Democrats have voiced the conviction that a political class is essential to control social interaction and worth the payment for dedicated ones. Bernie Sanders sounds like he really believes what he is saying. But according to the proven principles of The U.S. Constitution, not only is government theft of freedom and manipulation of commerce morally wrong, it is a futile tilting at windmills that would make Don Quixote blush.

A dynamic economy of booming growth, opportunity and prosperity, necessarily rewards investors above new workers. And an economy that does not will also reward investors without maximally employing and advancing workers, while growth and innovation are also restrained.. Barack Obama has propounded this redistributionist rhetoric, and the very wealthy have gained while the less so have not. That’s why wealthy corporations fund big government. Competition is restricted and commerce is left to them. I expect under Hillary Clinton we’d see more of the same. So would Bernie Sanders favor such European socialist style government-corporate fascism? Or is he a Bill Maher-style ignorant dreamer?

But before him on the program, was Republican Lindsay Graham. I’m more aligned and hang out with conservative Republicans who see Lindsay Graham as one of the foremost of “RINOS.” Though I often disagree with Graham, I don’t use that term, largely because it scoops a wide array of differing Republicans into one poorly-defined basket. The term gained popularity over 30 years ago, when Democrats actually switched parties in states trending Republican for purposes of electoral viability more than ideology. Then I acknowledged the term, but today it seems one qualifies if they raise suspicion on any matter of speech or position thought orthodox among conservatives. My conservative orthodoxy is The Constitution Of The United States. By that measure, a precious few Republicans would not qualify as “RINOs.”

Personally, I don’t dislike Lindsay Graham, though I often disagree with him. When Wallace asked why Graham thought he would run for president, he said that he thought he had been more right than wrong on foreign policy. And when Wallace asked why even in his own state of South Carolina, polls say a majority don’t favor him among Republican candidates, he said he had recently won a Senate primary by a large margin. Foreign policy is considered the longtime military lawyer’s strong suit and emphasis. And he said defense is a primary responsibility of Washington. Constitutionally, that’s certainly true. National defense is one of a few constitutionally legitimate federal tasks. And I do think Graham is usually right in his efforts in that regard.

But Graham was first branded a heretic when he sponsored and promoted “comprehensive immigration reform” during the Bush administration. And Sunday he said of Marco Rubio that he had favored immigration reform but appeared to be backing away from it. Well, not exactly, which is the same problem as with “RINO.” The details of so-called immigration reform aren’t clear. I didn’t agree with the bill Graham supported or with what he favors now. But I agree that as he said, the border and the status of those already here is way past needing to be dealt with. And I have been called a “RINO” myself, which is wild because I think I’m a conservative stickler. Criminal elements should be dealt with harshly, and working non-criminal residency should be legal. But there should be no benefits of citizenship beyond basic legal status for non-citizens. And there should be no special pathway to citizenship, which is an outrageous idea. It’s a tiny expectation of those who circumvented the law to ask them to line up in the same process as everyone else.

There were a couple of other thoughts that conservatives generally disagree with, and so do I. But one statement of Graham’s was as patently disqualifying for an American president as could be; certainly for a Republican candidate. Wallace noted Graham’s criticism of Ted Cruz for saying that The Second Amendment is the ultimate check against government tyranny. Graham said, “The ultimate check against government tyranny is an informed electorate who will elect people who believe in limited government. I don’t want to embrace the idea that I believe that we want people to take to the street with guns…” Wow. That is breathtakingly simplistic for a Republican; especially one talking about running to be the chief executive charged with protecting and defending The Constitution Of The United States. I don’t, but had I ever considered Graham as a presidential candidate, that would strike any such notion dead and stiff. I wouldn’t even support that candidate for Congress. In a presidential debate, Ted Cruz would dissect and constitutionally destroy that kind of argument.

I believe the operative word of Cruz’s statement would be “ultimate.” The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate check against government tyranny after the proximate check of an informed electorate has failed, and government is restricting fundamental liberties wholesale, perhaps abusing its legal possession of exceptional lethal force. I wish Wallace had asked Graham what he thought The Second Amendment was for. It’s first to deter that critical scenario from happening, and second to be certain the public is not defenseless when it may. Personally, I don’t hunt and I don’t shoot for fun. But I am unequivocal about The Second Amendment’s absolute necessity and strategic placement in The Constitution. It is critical to the republic and was second in The Bill Of Rights for a definite reason: The Second Amendment is there to preserve all of the other Constitutional rights. If that isn’t crystal clear to you, I don’t really trust you with The Constitution.

Issues: 
 

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy