Win One for the Gipper : Reagan Conservatives in a Trump Conservative World

WE KNOW TODAY WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN. Don't give in and don't give up. • • • CONSERVATIVES ARE USED TO FIGHTING "THE GOOD FIGHT." We American conservatives, led politically by the Republican Party since the Civil War, believe in "conserving" specific ways, ideas, traditions, and policies. We believe in a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution, based on what it plainly says and on an examination of history. We conservatives believe every individual is responsible to and for him or her self and that the Republic is strongest when each individual takes responsibility for him or her self and his or her family. The fewer laws, the better, because laws restrict freedom, including the right to "choose to fail." Anyone who "chooses to fail" should not be assisted by the government. Government should be as small as possible so as to infringe on the liberty of individuals as little as possible. Progressives, on the other hand, believe the nation as a whole is only as strong as its weakest link, and that when citizens, as a whole, cannot forge traditions which accomplish this over-arching idea, then legislation and state control is the only way to achieve what is necessary. Progressives pass laws to insure the strong do not prey on the weak, and that the weak are given a more than equal opportunity to gain strength. What is true, and has been since the First World War led to the League of Nations is that Progressives also want a "world government" under which the US and its unique vision of personal responsibility and freedom to choose one's life are suppressed by the goal of making the statz the arbiter of all personal rights and freedoms. • • • FDR TRIED TO "PACK" THE SUPREME COURT. We conservatives knew that the Progressives were out to subvert the Constitution on February 5, 1937, when President Franklin Roosevelt announced a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the Court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal. During the previous two years, the Supreme Court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government. Confident after his landslide reelection in 1936, FDR issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan. In April, however, before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and by a narrow majority upheld as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. The majority opinion acknowledged that the national economy had grown to such a degree that federal regulation and control was now warranted. Roosevelt’s reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees. • We conservatives have always known that the Supreme Court is our last resort in protecting the meaning of all the words in the Constitution. That's why President Trump promised to appoint conservatives judges to the Court, following up with Neil Gorsuch as his first appointee. • • • LBJ'S GREAT SOCIETY WAR ON POVERTY. We conservatives knew in 1963, after the tragic assassination of President Kennedy, that Lyndon Johnson would try to "enshrine" JKF's Progressive "legacy." And, Lyndon Baines Johnson moved quickly to establish himself in the office of the presidency. Despite his conservative voting record in the Senate, Johnson soon reacquainted himself with his Progressive roots, sponsoring the largest reform agenda since Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. The aftershock of Kennedy's assassination provided a climate for Johnson to complete the unfinished work of JFK's New Frontier. He had eleven months before the election of 1964 to prove to American voters that he deserved a chance to be President in his own right. Two very important pieces of legislation were passed. First, the Civil Rights Bill that JFK promised to sign was passed into law. The Civil Rights Act banned discrimination based on race and gender in employment and ending segregation in all public facilities. After Republican conservative Barry Goldwater tried to unseat Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election and was soundly defeated, Progressives gathered steam and LBJ signed the omnibus Economic Oportunity Act of 1964, creating the Office of Economic Opportunity aimed at attacking the roots of American poverty. A Job Corps was established to provide vocational training. Head Start, a preschool program designed to help disadvantaged students arrive at kindergarten ready to learn was put into place. VISTA was set up as a domestic Peace Corps. Schools in impoverished American regions would now receive volunteer teaching attention. Federal funds were sent to struggling communities to attack unemployment and illiteracy. Johnson declared a "war on poverty." American liberal Progressivism was at high tide under President Johnson and we still live under its Progressive goal of cradle-to-grave social planning and state control. • • • THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. We conservatives have always known that the text of the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms : “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions. Many Americans at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons. But, as militias proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime. However, the Anti-Federalist opponents of a strong central government argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms. So, shortly after the US Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle -- held by both Federalists and their Anti-Federalist opponents -- that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens. • The crux of the debate is whether the Second Amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units. Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War. On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA), founded in 1871, and its supporters have been the most visible defenders of this argument. • Congress passed one of the most high-profile federal gun control efforts, the so-called Brady Bill, in the 1990s, largely thanks to the efforts of former White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who had been shot in the head during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Since the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers, the debate on gun control has changed dramatically. This is partially due to the actions of the Supreme Court, which departed from its past stance on the Second Amendment with its verdicts in two major cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protects the right to bear arms not only under state laws but also in federal areas, such as the District of Columbia, where a federal law barring nearly all civilians from possessing guns in the District of Columbia was invalidated in Heller. The Supreme Court thus extended Second Amendment protection to individuals in federal (non-state) enclaves. Writing the majority decision in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia gave the Court’s weight to the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual private gun ownership for self-defense purposes. Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government. In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” • But, in Heller, the Court suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying arms in schools and government buildings, restrictions on gun sales, bans on the concealed carrying of weapons, and generally bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” • That is the basis for much of today's argument about how why and why to "control" gun ownership. The mass shooting of 58 people attending a country music concert in Las Vegas (to date the largest mass shooting in US history, overtaking the 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and the February Parkland school shooting of 17 students and teachers in Flordia have led to calls to restrict sales of “bump stocks,” attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire faster. Conservatives and the NRA and other gun rights supporters see such restrictions as an unacceptable violation of their Second Amendment rights. • • • WHAT CONSERVATIVES KNOW TODAY. There is another issue swirling through Washington and into the hearts of Americans that highlights the Conservative-Progressive battle. • • • SESSIONS' FISA INVESTIGATION. We conservatives know that Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to use the Department of Justice inspector general appointed by President Obama to investigate alleged FISA abuse is, as labeled by President Trump on Twitter, "disgraceful." Why would AG Sessions choose the Obama DOJ inspector general to investigate the allegations, supported by memos released by Congress, about apparently illegal Obama-era FBI and DOJ efforts to obtain FISA warrants to spy on a former Trump campaign advisor. President Trump tweeted : “Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!” • Sessions confirmed on Tuesday, in response to a question from Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, that the abuse accusations being leveled against the DOJ and its FBI for its possibly illegal obtaining of the Carter Page FISA surveillance warrant would be investigated at the DOJ IG level, saying : “The inspector general will take that as one of the matters he'll deal with,” he said, in reference to DOJ IG Michael Horowitz. "One of the matters" hardly does justice to the fundamental constitutional question about whether a federal law enforcement agency can lie to or withhold evidence and facts from a top secret court in order to get a warrant to 'spy' on a US citizen who is unaware of the FISA court proceeding and has no right to present his defense before the 'spying' is authorized. That smacks of state tyranny over citizens. Sessions must know that. But, he insists it is "one of the matters" that an Obama appointee will "deal with." Can any constitutional issue be more important that the nullification of every right to self-defense and personal freedom from hamfisted government drum court tryanny than this FISA question? Where is Sessions' outrage? Where is the above-reproach prosecutor who will find the facts and act according to them? Where is Sessions' loyalty to the Constitution -- forget about his loyalty to the President who appointed him; we long ago realized that Sessions has no loyalty to Trump. Can it be possible that AG Sessions is a Swamp Creature who is simply defending his territory. What about this Sessions statement : "We have initiated the appropriate process that will ensure complaints against this Department will be fully and fairly acted upon if necessary. As long as I am the Attorney General, I will continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor, and this Department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and Constitution." THE "appropriate process" to act on complaints about the DOJ "IF necessary." If that is not a Swamp Creature defending his turf from the objective investigation being cried out for by a fundamental abuse of citizens' constitutional rights, then tell me what is. • This is not the first time Trump has chastized AG Sessions, who was among Trump’s earliest supporters during the 2016 presidential campaign. An updated edition of the book, “The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency,” revealed that former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, a friend of Swamp Creatures, had to intervene last year to dissuade Sessions from resigning. This was reportedly after Trump personally excoriated Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Why does Sessions remain Attorney General? Is he a plant inside the Trump senoir legal leadership -- a Swamp Creature bought and paid for, who knows he will be protected from any Trump attempt to replace him? One thing he is not is a great or even good constitutional lawyer, not based on his cavalier approach to the whole FISA issue. There has been more than a year of investigating and talking by Sessions, who all the while allowed his Deep State Obama hangovers to stonewall congressional requests for FISA-probe-related documents and to appoint Robert Mueller as the special counsel -- Mueller, whose credentials all point to an overwhelming bias in favor of President Obama and Hillary Clinton and whose staff reeks of anti-Trumpers. • • • THE MEDIA. Fix This Nation quoted Devin Nunes as telling the Conservative Political Action Conference : "We’re witnessing “the collapse of the media.” Fix This Nation wrote on Monday : "Nunes, who has been on the front lines of the Republican inquiry into the shady intelligence community mechanisms that led to the Trump/Russia investigation, spoke to the conference this weekend just as the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released their rebuttal memo to the public. In his Q&A session with CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp, Nunes said he did not expect the Democrats’ memo to fool anyone. 'We actually wanted this out,' he said. 'It’s clear evidence that the Democrats are not only covering this up, but they’re also colluding with parts of the government to cover this up.' Nunes said that the House Intelligence Committee’s inquiry into the Russian scandal had uncovered nothing that would endanger Trump’s presidency. 'We’ve seen no evidence of collusion,' he said. To which Schlapp corrected : 'We’ve seen no evidence of Republicans colluding.' 'That’s fair,' Nunes said with a hint of a smile." The CPAC audience roared with approval as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee explained why it was necessary to release a memo that showed how much information the FBI hid from the FISA court : “Our memo was for one purpose only, and that was to show that FISA abuse occurred. They are advocating that it’s okay for the FBI and DOJ to use political dirt paid for by one campaign and use it against another political campaign.” • Nunes added that while it was disturbing to see the lengths to which the Obama administration went to justify spying on an American citizen and a political opponent, it was just as disturbing to watch the American news media take sides against the truth : “What you’re really seeing is the collapse of the media. It’s really sad. Most Americans now understand that no matter where you’re getting your news from, it’s going to be biased.” • The Founders recognized that a free press was essential to the new Republic. Jefferson knew that our Republic could only flourish with a free press that would keep an eye on people in power and help protect our First Amendment right : “The only security of all is in a free press.” Jefferson's point : "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." Benjamin Franklin said : “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved.” That was in 1736, long before the First Amendment or even the Constitution existed. And for us modern conservatives, President Reagan summed it up : “Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life. There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success in what the founding fathers called our 'noble experiment' in self-government.' ” • So, it is not only sad but dangerous for the future of our Republic if the press is no longer "free" or becomes simply propagandists for one or another political party or viewpoint. And, if we look at it from one perspective, the mainstream media has been far worse in their biases lately, even if it has always leaned left. The only power we as citizens have to combat a deeply biased mainstream media is to recognize its bias and search for news elsewhere, as well as listening to an occasional MSM news program in order to understand their bias so we can be prepared to fight against it with the power of facts and of conviction in our position as conservatives defending the Republic and its Constitution. We must gather news from a variety of sources, compare them, and come to our own conclusions. This is what the Founders sought and gave us the First Amendment to preserve. The power of informed conservative citizens is the best guarantee that the Republic will survive for future generations. • • • • CPAC CONSERVATIVES SPEAK ABOUT TRUMP. The Washington Times published a summary of CPAC attendees' thoughts on President Trump : "Barbara Dwyer wanted to go all in with Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary race but couldn’t shake her hesitation and instead cast her vote for Senator Marco Rubio. A year into the Trump presidency, the 36-year-old stay-at-home mother of five said she is 'a million percent' happy that she got it wrong. 'I love Senator Rubio, I respect what he does, but Donald Trump is bringing a lot of energy to the party, and he is getting things done, which has not happened in quite some time,' said Mrs. Dwyer, attending the Conservative Political Action Conference last week just outside the Beltway. 'A lot of people are coming around because they are happy and they are seeing the direction and excited about where we are headed.' Mrs. Dwyer’s sentiment is the latest evidence of how firmly Mr. Trump has grasped the reins of the American conservative movement, erasing doubts about his own bona fides even as he draws the political right toward his own beliefs. 'Remember when I first started running?' Mr. Trump said as he kicked off his speech to CPAC on Friday. 'I started running, and people say, ‘Are you sure he’s a conservative?’ I think, now, we’ve proved that I’m a conservative, right?' " The numbers back him up. A CPAC/Washington Times poll of more than 1,100 attendees found that 93% of conservatives approve of the job Trump has done over his first year in office -- up from 86% last year. The crowd also was more optimistic about the direction of the nation than they were a year ago, with 75% saying the nation is on the right track, compared with 44% last year. Conservatives are increasingly pushing for congressional Republicans to take their cue from President Trump, with 79% saying Republican majorities in the House and Senate should be doing more to support the President -- up from the 67% in last year’s poll. Just 4% of the conservatives said Congress should try to stymie Trump’s agenda. Jim McLaughlin, who ran the poll, said : “The conservative movement has found a new leader.” • In prior years, CPAC provided conservatives with a chance to reminisce about former President Ronald Reagan, lament about President Obama, and complain about how liberals and moderate Republicans had undercut the nation’s moral and fiscal underpinnings and tarnished the nation’s place on the world stage. CPAC also served as a showcase for the party’s biggest stars and home of the highly anticipated presidential preference straw poll, which Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky won in 2013, 2014 and 2015. Senator Ted Cruz took the honor in 2016, the same year that candidate Trump abruptly pulled out of the event amid reports that activists planned to stage a walkout to show their support for Cruz and concerns about Trump. • A year into the Trump presidency, those concerns have evaporated, with conservatives cheering the first major overhaul of the federal tax code since Reagan, appointing Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and beginning to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Washington Times talked to William Temple, a CPAC regular known for dressing up in Revolutionary War garb, who was behind the plan to walk out on Trump two years ago. Temple said : “I was a big Cruz supporter, but Trump has done everything that I wanted Cruz to do and more, and he has accomplished it in a year." Temple said the President has been so successful that it has forced him to rethink his views on leadership : “Why would we ever elect career politicians to do anything? We should be getting private-sector people, ex-military, whatever, people who actually have sacrificed for the country.” Temple said he also is happy that his top pick for the job lost and “as a matter of fact, I think Ted Cruz is looking at it and realizing the same thing.” Cruz actually said nearly as much, telling the CPAC crowd that Trump’s “record of delivery has been remarkable.” • For conservatives, the biggest stains on Trump’s record are his uncouth behavior and his decision to sign off on a bill last month that increased spending over two years by $300 billion. Robert Sinnott, 34, told the Washington Times : “I was a Ted Cruz supporter, and the concerns I had was [Trump] not keeping his promises on a lot of things. But he seems to be doing a fairly good job on that. I am happy he has repealed a lot of different regulations like he said he would. I am happy about the tax cuts, and I didn’t really like him tweeting at first, but it seems to rile up the left, so it is good in a way.” Rick Zimmerman, who supported Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and then Senator Cruz in 2016 before voting for Trump in the general election, said the biggest barriers to getting more of the Trump agenda passed have been wayward Republicans such as Senator John McCain : “If he had a better Congress, he’d do more.” Zimmerman, 71, said he also is happy that he was wrong about Trump being a conservative President : “I just didn’t think he was going to be that kind of conservative. I was wrong.” • Since the Parkland shooting, we conservatives have been rightly worried that President Trump may endanger the Second Amendment. As National Review's David French wrote on February 21 : "For the Second Amendment to remain a meaningful check on state power, citizens must be able to possess the kinds and categories of weapons that can at least deter state overreach, that would make true authoritarianism too costly to attempt. I fully recognize that there are many millions of Americans who flatly disagree with the notion that armed citizens either can or should try to deter tyranny. Either their trust in the government is so complete (or their sense of futility in the face of its armed might so great) that they don’t believe private ownership of weapons is a meaningful check on lawless government action, or they believe that the cost of widespread civilian gun ownership is simply too high to pay in exchange for a theoretical check on state power. That’s a debate worth having -- in the context of a long-term Progressive effort to repeal the Second Amendment. But for now, the Founders have settled question. As Justice Scalia ably articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment was designed to protect what Blackstone called “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” Without access to the weapons in common use in our time, the law-abiding citizen will grow increasingly -- and intolerably -- vulnerable to the lawless. Thus, to properly defend life and liberty, access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines isn’t a luxury; it’s a necessity. • • • DEAR READERS, with all this in mind, let's consider Donald Trump. He is the leader we chose because he was the most likely candidate to win back what we wanted from a broken Congress and a Progressive assault on the Constitution. President Trump has done that admirably in his first year. And, he has done it in the teeth of the gravest attack on the presidency and constitutional separation of powers the Republic has known since Fort Sumter in 1861. The blatant assault on Trump is merely the facade of the Progressive assault on all of us who support America as a constitutional Republic. In a real way, meaning no disrespect or outlandish comparison, Donald Trump is taking the lashing and crown of thorns that we conservatives have avoided since 1937 because we thought we had to live to fight another day. Another day has become the final day, and President Trump is taking on our mantle. • We surely did not expect Donald Trump, a businessman who spent his life amassing billions of dollars, to read Locke or Burke or Jefferson or William Buckley or Russell Kirk, or even Ronald Reagan, as tirelessly we do. We have devoted our political lives to that reading and to a thrust and parry war against Progressive battalions -- and it kept us alive while we waited for a Braveheart. Ronald Reagan laid the groundwork, but he did not have time or legislative resources to finish the job. Today, we have a President ready to finish the job. He has a GOP Congress that follows him, some better than others. He needs a full house in 2018. If he seems to wobble in the face of Parkland, remember that he is not, as we are, steeped in the Constitution's conservatism. But, he defends it whenever he understands that it is being eroded. And, make no mistake, it is being eroded frontally in this latest attack on the Second Amendment. But, the eternal beauty of the US Constitution is its finely tuned balancing act. We saw that this morning when Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn, who is leading the GOP response to gun violence in the upper chamber, told reporters after the meeting with Trump at the White House that he still favors a limited approach. He wants to put a narrow bill on the floor that would give state and local officials more incentive to report relevant information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System known as NICS. • If we trust the real conservatives in Congress to do their jobs, if we trust them to do the thrusting and parrying in the Swamp that President Trump is ill-prepared to do, then what Trump will do is 'understand.' He is a conservative by instinct. He needs only to be pointed in the right constitutional direction by us lifelong conservatives bloodied by our years of fighting in the Swampy trenches against Progressive overreach and its recent astonishing cabal. Abandoning President Trump would be the worst thing any true conservative could do right now. It would fulfill the Progressives' greatest dream. • 'Win one for the Gipper" is the most famous American football quote of all time. Knute Rockne was the coach of the Notre Dame team in the 1920s and George Gipp was his star player. Knute Rockne gave his "Win One for the Gipper" speech to the Notre Dame players at halftime of the 1928 Army game. Rockne was trying to salvage something from his worst season as a coach at Notre Dame. To inspire the players he told them the story of the tragic death of the greatest player ever at ND, George Gipp. Rockne told his 1928 players : "And the last thing he said to me, 'Rock,' he said, 'sometime when the team is up against it and the breaks are beating the boys, tell 'em to go out there with all they got and win just one for the Gipper. I don't know where I'll be then, Rock,' he said, 'but I'll know about it and I'll be happy.' " • The phrase "Win one for the Gipper" was a political slogan used by Ronald Reagan, who in 1940 portrayed Gipp in the film "Knute Rockne, All American." President Reagan was often referred to as "The Gipper." His most famous use of the phrase was at the Republican National Convention in 1988 in New Orleans, when he told Vice President Bush, "George, go out there and win one for the Gipper." It was a tearful moment in conservative history as we were cut afloat by the only successful leader we could remember. • Knute Rockne rallied his team to beat the undefeated Army team, 12-6. That may sound too sentimental for today's final battle between conservatives and Progressives. It isn't. We are approaching a 2018 halftime -- the mid-terms. President Trump needs a win desperately. So do we. So does the Republic. If you believe with me that President Reagan is watching this battle, then the Gipper is surely telling us to win this one for him -- "I'll know about it and I'll be happy." Can't you just see the twinkle in his smiling eyes.