I has the privilege today of attending a luncheon sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Convention. The luncheon was held in Columbia and the keynote speaker was Fred Dalton Thompson. When the opportunity to go to this presented itself, there was no chance I was going to pass it up.
Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.
Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.
In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?
On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.
In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.
Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.
I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.
There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.
As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”
————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.
UPDATE: Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format. To listen to it click here.
Predictably, following the horror on the Virginia Tech campus yesterday, there are numerous calls for more strict gun control. The claim is that if we can just get guns out of people’s hands, senseless violence like this can be averted. This is a typical knee jerk reaction fueled entirely by emotion rather than reasoned assessment.
Ironically, a bill in the Virginia legislature, HB1572, never made it out of subcommittee. Virginia’s concealed carry laws exempt state college campuses from the right to carry a concealed weapon. HB1572 would have eliminated that exemption. Had HB1572 been passed into law, students and faculty who had concealed carry permits would have been able to carry a firearm on campus and very likely this crazed gunman would have been stopped long before he killed 32 students and faculty.
Gun control advocates operate under the assumption that gun control can somehow remove guns from the hands of criminals. The facts, however, contradict that assumption. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. We don’t have enough information at this juncture to know whether the gunman at Virginia Tech had a legal gun but the statistics say he probably did not.
The NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, has a column every month dedicated to recounting how legal gun owners stop crime. Case after case is listed where someone legally carrying a gun stops a crime and often kills a violent criminal before that criminal can harm innocent people. The statistics say that people who legally obtain and license hand guns either never use them against another person or use them in the prevention of a crime. It virtually never happens that a person with a legal gun uses that gun in the commission of a crime.
Conversely, criminals are not deterred by gun laws. The old saw is true that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. A gun in the hands the right person yesterday could have easily stopped this gunman before so many innocent students and faculty were killed or injured.
The calls for more gun control will continue for some time. The Democrat Party will attempt to use this horrible tragedy to advance their political agenda and increase their power. This event will be shamelessly politicized to an enormous degree.
If you want to see the true results of gun control, watch this YouTube video of congressional testimony.
This woman watched her parents be killed by another deranged gunman with an illegally obtained weapon while she was helpless to do anything about it because her right to carry a weapon had been abridged. She said she’d rather be in jail on a gun charge with her parents alive than free with her parents dead. I fully agree. An armed citizenry is the best defense against this kind of senseless violence. Don’t let this horrible tragedy goad you into the knee jerk reaction of more gun control. That is not a solution. It only makes us less safe.
We are taught that the police are there to protect us but in truth, the police cannot protect us and if pressed, they will admit as much. The police are in the business of solving crimes that have already been committed, not crime prevention. If we are to be safe in our schools, our neighborhoods and our homes, we must have the ability to protect ourselves. That is far more difficult if we are disarmed.
It’s been a little while since I wrote a purely political post and now it is time. I received an email today from Bobby Harrell, Speaker of the House in the South Carolina Legislature. He was enthusiastic over John McCain’s win in the Spartanburg straw poll on Thursday. It seems that as of Thursday even McCain was a distant third but by the time all the votes had been counted Friday morning, McCain had won by two points.
Speaker Harrell goes on to promote McCain as a conservative. My question is, what is Speaker Harrell’s definition of conservative?
It seems that the term conservative, much like many other terms in our day, has undergone a redefinition. Apparently it no longer means committed to limited government. It no longer means being dedicated to the Constitution of the United States, as written. If John McCain can be considered a conservative then the very word conservative has lost its meaning altogether.
You will remember that McCain, in his misguided attempts to blame his own shortcomings on others, managed to bulldoze through McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. That legislation represents the single biggest assault on constitutionally protected political speech in my lifetime, perhaps ever! But Senator McCain was convinced that we needed it. In fact, he is not satisfied to stop there and now wants to go after the 521s that resulted from his previous legislation.
What McCain has done is make it more difficult for anyone to challenge incumbents while severely limiting the ability of individuals to make their voices heard when it comes to politics. If the First Amendment’s free speech clause protects anything, it protects political speech in all forms but John McCain, apparently, disagrees or doesn’t care. His view of things takes precedence over the Constitution it seems.
John McCain, who has worked hard to build his reputation as a maverick, is anything but a conservative. He is an opportunist. He wants to be President and has done everything in his power to keep his face in the news to that end. His protege, Lindsey Graham, is following close in his footsteps. Neither is a conservative and neither will ever have my support.
I still subscribe to a more traditional definition of conservative. I believe in limited government and individual responsibility to go along with individual rights. I believe, as did most of our founding fathers, that a religious electorate is necessary to a republican for of government. I believe that political speech is protected by the first amendment but pornography is not. Call me old fashioned but that is how I view conservatism. John McCain has a different view. He opposed the tax cuts that he now thinks should be extended but he will not say that he was wrong in opposing them in the first place. He supports the troop surge but it that appears to be political expediency. While his position cost him support initially, he has clearly gain conservative support as a result. He is attempting to remake himself in a conservative mold. He has rightly judged what most in the Republican party have missed. That is, that conservatives have had it with Republicans who abandon conservative principles. Had John McCain stood for these things all along he would have me in his camp. But not only has he NOT stood for these things, he will not repudiate his prior positions.
John McCain does not meet my definition of a conservative. He never has and I expect he never will. I still do not believe he can get the Republican nomination but if I am proved wrong, I will have to do a lot of soul searching before I could vote for him. His motivation is his personal aspirations. He is not motivated by principles and I cannot support anyone who votes for or opposes anything based on how it will reflect on him personally.
Much is being said in the halls of Congress these days about the “fact” that Congress is a co-equal branch of government. As such, the argument goes, Congress has the authority to reign in the President’s plans with respect to the Iraq war. There have even been plans floated to limit the number of troops the President can place in Iraq, for example. The purpose of this post is to examine the rationale for this co-equal claim and to see if the Constitution supports it.
My first question is, what does co-equal mean? The Constitution grants specific duties and authority to each branch of government. While there is some overlap, generally each branch has different responsibilities and powers than the other branches. Congress, for example, has the power to create and pass legislation. The President and the judiciary do not. The President, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces while the Congress and the judiciary are not. In what sense then can the three branches of government be said to be co-equal?
I submit that the very term “co-equal” is meaningless and that those using it do so not out of any realistic claims to authority but to put forth a propaganda campaign to a populace largely uneducated with regard to constitutional powers and the structure of government. They simply make a claim and expect Americans to accept it. The fact is, no branch is equal to another branch. All branches of government are equally important but they are not equal any more than an apple equals an orange.
Congress does indeed have one large power that could be used to effectively end the war in Iraq. That power is the ability to cut off funding. Our founding fathers gave them that power and it is completely legitimate. Using it, however, is a politically risky proposition. While Congress can cut of funding for the war, that does not obligate the President to bring the troops home. The President could, for example, continue the campaign in Iraq without funding and place the responsibility for the outcome on the Congress. At this juncture it is doubtful that Congress will take such a drastic step.
What other constitutional power does Congress have with regard to the war? None. Congress can pass non-binding resolutions every day for the duration of the session and their actions will not require anything of the President. He can go on his way doing what he is doing. True, they can make him pay a political price but they have no authority to force him to do anything militarily.
Claims that Congress has the authority to limit troops in this or that theater are false. True, Congress can pass any legislation it wants, including legislation mandating that the President limit troop strengths. The President, however, would be under no obligation to pay any attention to such legislation because the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority for passing it.
The caveat here is the judiciary. Regardless of Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court has shown a penchant for upholding legislation that is in flagrant opposition to the Constitution. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is but one example. So in any action the Congress may take, the Supreme Court becomes a wild card.
In the event that Congress passes legislation restricting troop strengths, the President would have several options. He could ignore such legislation and do what he thinks best with the troops in which case Congress would almost certainly sue the President in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the President could sue Congress immediately. Either course leads to the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule against the President in such a situation, I submit that the President would have the Constitutional authority to ignore such a ruling. Indeed, the judiciary depends entirely on the executive for enforcement of its decisions. If the courts make a decision that clearly violates the Constitution I submit that the President not only has the ability to go against it, he has the duty to do so.
Lest anyone think I am engaging in partisan hyperbole let me say that my view on this does not depend on who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. While I would likely disagree with much of what a Democrat President stood for, his Constitutional authority does not depend on his positions on issues or his party affiliation. By definition, constitutional authority derives from the Constitution. Therefore, any President is duty bound to take his oath of office seriously and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. That includes the courts when they blatantly disregard the Constitution in favor of their own ideology.
The bottom line is this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such it falls to him how and when to use them. Congress can bluster all it wants but they cannot change that balance of power.
Back in 2004 I wrote a piece on campaign finance reform that rightly pointed out the unconstitutionality and hypocrisy of that legislation. It is a well documented piece and worth reading again.
Now that we are approaching another election season, the problems and conflicts that legislation creates are before us once again. Well blogger Kim du Toit has a great idea that I intend to follow (H/T Dean’s World). Here is Kim’s plan:
Here’s my promise: If a conservative organization wants to run a political ad criticizing any Congressman up for re-election during that 60-day window, I’ll let them run one on this website, for free, right up until Election Day.
And if Congress or for that matter law enforcement think that I’m going to refrain from criticizing an elected or wannabe-elected official, ever, they’re sadly mistaken.
As a supporter of the Constitution I make the same promise Kim made. Any conservative organization may run ads on my site critical of any politician right up until election day. Along with Kim, I don’t care what the FEC or the FCC or anyone else has to say about it. My governing authority is the Constitution which says:
Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added)
Kim and all those who oppose the assault on the Constitution, I am with you!
