The House Freedom Caucus Lost Their Token Conservative

The House Freedom Caucus Lost Their Token Conservative June 11, 2019

This was the right move, and I applaud Michigan Representative Justin Amash.

Amash has continued to show himself a beacon of rational thought and stoic conservatism, at a time when the personality cult and a dangerous lean to authoritarianism has begun to rot away the rafters and beams of the Republican Party.

The [now] laughably named House Freedom Caucus can no longer claim to be the congressional bulwark against destructive, liberal attacks on the foundations of our nation and our constitution. Whatever their beginnings, their present is a disgrace.

Alert to the boneheads that make up that cabal of Trumpian toadies:

Economy-busting tariffs, that serve as a tax on American citizens is not conservative.

Gun grabbing of any sort is not conservative, and Trump’s ban of bump stocks, as well as his suggestion that you can take a citizen’s guns first, then worry about due process doesn’t just strain the confines of the Second Amendment, but pushes them dangerously close to the breaking point.

Attacking the free press is not conservative.

Alienating our NATO allies is not a mark of a conservative leader. Or of an intelligent one. Our representatives are supposed to protect us from such dangerous isolationism.

Embracing despots and our nation’s geopolitical foes is not conservative.

All of these things would be all anyone heard of from the right, were it a Democrat president doing them.

Because of Trump, however, they’re either ignored or cheered on by the very ones who claim to be the arbiters of conservative thought in Congress.

And as of Monday night, there is no longer an active voice of sanity within the House Freedom Caucus.

Elvis Justin Amash has left the building.

In May, Amash made waves by suggesting on social media that after a thorough reading of the findings within special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report, that President Trump had met the threshold for impeachment.

Now, contrary to how many outlets have framed it, Amash did not call for the impeachment of the president.

What he did was state his position, explain that he’d actually taken time to read the full report (at least, what wasn’t redacted), and he applied the law.

In doing that, he then came to the conclusion that Trump’s conduct during the course of the Russia probe met the qualifications.

That being said, it is up to the Democrat-majority Congress, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to determine if impeachment proceedings should begin, and she’s not having it.

Amash, a TEA Party candidate who came into office in 2010, came under fire from his own party for boldly speaking his thoughts on President Trump.

Conservatism, after all, is more about protecting Trump than protecting the Constitution, and what Amash did by failing to toe that line was a blasphemy.

Unbowed, Amash has continued to post his legal opinions, and in particular, has been rough on Trump’s new Roy Cohn/Michael Cohen figure, Attorney General William Barr.

Apparently, because he likewise failed to ask their permission before presenting his thoughts, publicly, the push was on to oust him from their merry band of spineless Trump enablers.

“They called a special board meeting last Tuesday to continue discussing next steps, including removal. Amash was in attendance (at one point he was asked to step out of the room),” a source with knowledge of the conversations told The Hill.

“This was the maneuver the group landed on — telling him to bow out gracefully while stopping the political hemorrhaging, especially since he wasn’t overly involved in the operation this Congress,” the source added. “At the end of the day, HFC isn’t in the business of booting out members. There’s too much mutual respect, and for many, the differences of opinion is what makes the group unique compared to others.”

Bovine excrement.

Of course, Amash’s bravery in the midst of utter cowardice has earned him their ire – along with a primary challenger in Michigan.

I really don’t think the honey badger of the GOP cares, and I wonder how long he’ll hang in with that faithless party.

What we know now, however, is that Amash has made the decision to unhitch his reputation from the House Freedom Caucus, and it couldn’t have come at a better time.

The question now is: What next?





"What self-serving codswallop. I assure you I can think, read, and listen for myself. I ..."

The Silence of the American Church ..."
"White nationalism isn't on the rise. The socialist mainstream media picks an issue and hammers ..."

The Silence of the American Church ..."
"David Thornton over on the Resurgent is pretty reasonable and nontribal. Although he is more ..."

The Silence of the American Church ..."
"Americans, religious or not, have always been free to vote for whomever they want. And ..."

The Silence of the American Church ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • chemical

    From Susan:

    The [now] laughably named House Freedom Caucus can no longer claim to be the congressional bulwark against destructive, liberal attacks on the foundations of our nation and our constitution. Whatever their beginnings, their present is a disgrace.

    I want to dive into this comment a bit, and tackle the notion that Donald Trump is somehow a secret liberal.

    So, after reading Susan’s blog a bit, I think I understand a bit better about what conservatism actually is, and it involves how one answers the question “How does the government solve the issues America is facing?” If your answer is via subtle actions that don’t disrupt our way of life too much, than you’re conservative. If you’re fine with stepping on some toes if it gets the j​ob done quickly, then you’re a liberal.

    So I get why Susan (and the other conservatives here) think Donald Trump is a liberal. He goes real fast and breaks a lot of things. The problem here is that my side isn’t solely defined by moving fast and breaking a lot of things. We still have other values, too, you know, many of which you might label conservative values. Stuff like importance of rule of law, and a free press. These are not partisan values!

    Anyways, Trump is attempting to break the democratic norms we all hold dear to slake his insatiable ego. This makes him a serious threat to anyone who values American democracy, liberal or conservative.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    It’s looking more and more as if Amash will be leaving the GOP altogether for an independent run for President. If he does so, he may be the alternative that most of the Independents that have left the GOP and those Democrats that are fed up with the far-left direction of the DNC have been looking for.

    He will not be able to run as a GOP candidate because he will not be allowed to survive the GOP primary – Mitch McConnel’s control over the GOP money and Trump’s twitter rampages and destruction of GOP principles will prevent too many people from attempting to save ANY PART of the GOP – that much is obvious to anyone with an open mind.

    IF Justin runs for President (and I see no reason why he would NOT attempt an independent bid), his only option will be as an independent.

    He would have my vote.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Nope – your attempt to define “conservatism” in such simplistic terms has missed the mark.

    Conservatism is more about taking positions – IN ALL THINGS that:
    Just because a thing CAN be done does not always mean it SHOULD be done. Government does not / should not subsidize SOME businesses with the tax dollars taken from other (competing busineses).

    The Constitution has defined a method for modifying the structure of our government and even our Constitution (via the amendment process)). Until such time as Constitutional amendments are ratified, NO LAW OR REGULATION should be passed that attempts to bypass the Constitutional amendment process. This includes taxation for the purpose of advancing the unprovable “junk science” of AGW, it includes government declaring and meddling in health insurance, it includes government declaring that certain “classes” of individuals have the “right” to over-rule the Constitutional rights of other (non-protected) citizens – that includes the LGBT’s assumed “right” to destroy businesses of Christians, it includes the FFRF’s right to destroy churches and includes the Atheist attempts to drive all religion out of public display / public places – including attacks on military Chaplains for having a Bible in their office / on their desks.

    The government of our country was specifically formulated to restrict government control over the individual. Dictating that schools must allow cross-sexual locker & restrooms violates that prohibition and is not an authorized use of federal power. Federal laws that purport to “control” guns are NOT a Constitutionally authorized function of the federal government – nor is ANY attempt to limit (or register) gun ownership because both actions run afoul of the Constitution (which has not been modified to allow abridgment of the ownership of firearms).

    Trump’s attacks on the free press, on the validity of the judicial system and on the authority and oversight of Congress are all gross violations of the Constitution and SHOULD be considered (in ghe aggregate and when patterns of such abuse are documented) as impeachable offenses. The Democrats (as I posted weeks ago) have a problem – they have “cried wolf” so long for partisan reasons that no one really believes that any impeachment proceedings brought now are NOT for partisan reasons. NOT impeaching Trump however is also a Constitutional deriliction of HOR responsibility when there is sufficient evidence of Trump’s malfeasance to justify such action. The HOR has a Constitutional DUTY to impeach when it is appropriate, but Pelosi appears to be afraid to “pull the trigger” because of political and/or partisan considerations that are apparently more important to her than her duty to the Constitution she swore to uphold or to the country she swore t oserve.

    Conservatism is not about “breaking things” or not – it is about providing the type and form of government guaranteed by the US Constitution – a document that liberals believe is a “living document” to be interpreted by 9 people in any way that pleases the current culture in the locale tin which those 9 judges reside — a document that Conservatives believe means what it says unless and until it is changed via the ratification process.

    Conservatives recognize that the US is such a large country with so many diverse regions and so many diverse peoples, customs, religions and ethnicities that 9 people living in Wash DC cannot possibly amend the US Constitution by judicial fiat with the same level of wisdom, debate or input as representatives (and the voting populace) of the entire country. In other words, there can be no “one-size-fits-all” law or regulation that micromanages individual lives that can possibly result in a general improvement over the allowing each state to make their own laws and regulations that are appropriate for THEIR region and each county / city to do likewise.

    As it is, liberals believe they can force their way of life on the entire country if they can control the population centers and the news / TV programming out of NYC and Hollywood and control of young minds via university indoctrination. They have made ome gains, but the pendulum is swinging back toward traditional values and traditional values of decency, honor, family, faith and community because the traditional values are the only ones that actually work, producing the happiest, least neuronic population.

  • Hi Chemical

    If you are interested in learning more about conservative thought, try reading ‘Ten Conservative Principles’, or as it’s simply called in Trumpland ‘Muh Principles’.

  • chemical

    Sorry, I’m not implying that conservatism is this subtle action, small government thing only. As a liberal, it’s a lot to unpack, so unfortunately any summary I attempt to make of conservatism is going to be woefully short and over-simplistic. I’m speaking in VERY broad terms here for brevity’s sake.

    Every one of your hot button issues you posted here are does seem to support maintaining the status quo and not disrupting American society much.

    Also, this:

    …the pendulum is swinging back toward traditional values and traditional values of decency, honor, family, faith and community because the traditional values are the only ones that actually work, producing the happiest, least neuronic population.

    None of these are partisan values. If you look for them, you will find plenty of liberals that value those, too (although maybe not so much on the faith part, you all know my position on that one).

  • chemical

    Thanks, will examine more thoroughly when I get some time.

  • Michael Weyer

    Remember how for 8 years the right painted Obama as this “dictator”? And how right up until Trump took the oath, they were convinced Obama was about to institute martial law and make himself king? Now they back Trump because in thier minds “he’s right when Obama was wrong.”

    And sadly, there are going to be scores of the GOP who will go along with this because he does a few things they like. We can have a full scale Civil War II to get him out and yet they’ll still go on about “that horrible tyrant Obama and how bad Hillary would have been” rather than admit Trump was the true dictator.

  • Michael Weyer

    You know, I can actually agree on the SCOTUS stuff although it does come down a lot to “they agree with my side, they’re right, when they don’t, they’re wrong” a lot in some matters. Still, hard to argue some of their decisions haven’t caused far more problems than they solve.

    Thing is, you accuse liberals of “forcing their way of life” when the sad fact is, there are some evangelicals who think the First Amendement only pertains to Christians and gives them the right to force their views on others and that the U.S. is better as a theocracy. I know, not all of them do but they sadly are out there.

    Which just once more shows why you shouldn’t judge any group solely by the vocal minority of nutjobs. Sadly, it’s bad when said nuts have a place of power and influence.

  • Michael Weyer

    Sadly, those traits, like beauty, tend to be in the eye of the beholder.

    You and I may have common ground on a lot of stuff but as a Catholic, I will have differences in terms of faith. Plus, just see the current battles on LGBT stuff to see the vast gulf people have in what are family values and decency.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    You sound like you’re defending Obama using the “what about Trump ?” argument – you sound no better than the Trumpisan defending Trump using the “what about Obama ?” argument.

    The truth is that both Obama and Trump were each about as bad as the other in their thirst for personal power and “glory” as “king” of the US. BOTH looked down their noses at the “little people” of this country – those they should have been striving to serve.

    One big distinction between the partisan left and the partisan right and the true conservatives is that the true conservatives revile BOTH Obama and Trump for the extremists they are/were and look upon BOTH as unfit to serve in the high office of the US President because neither one has any appreciation of or respect for the office, the duties of that office or the responsibilities under the US Constitution, their Oaths of Office or to the people of this country they are supposed to be serving.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I think BTG’s reference to a definition of “conservative” is a start, though his reference is wordy and extremely susceptible to misinterpretation. It DOES bring up some good points, though:

    Conservatives generally believe that there IS a “natural order” to the world — a set of “natural laws” that can (in some respects) simply be referred to as “mother nature”, “physical laws”, “human nature”, or a plethora of other labels – all of which mean “laws of reality that are outside of human control”. To think that man is powerful or intelligent enough to control or modify our planet’s climate is simply hubris since volcanoes can belch more CO2 into the air in 2 days than all of mankind can produce in years and given our planet’s demonstrated capacity for self-healing, there is virtually nothing that mankind can do to this planet that will not heal on its own once mankind stops damaging his own eocystem. Examples include the bad smog (remember “smog”) issues over and around our cities of decades ago, the ozone layer that healed itself once we switched away from CFCs and propellants, nuclear waste disposal fears around nuclear energy, and the false demand that we need to convert our feed grains into alcohol because the world’s oil supply was both finite and virtually exhausted.

    Conservatives also generally agree that human nature has natural ‘rules’ that (when followed) result in happy, heathy societies but when when violated result in plagues, virulent outbreaks of illnesses (both mental and physical) and that ultimately result in the collapse of the societies so afflicted because the societies simply run out of resources “caring” for all those that (through their own determination to violate human nature) have contracted and spread the cultural rot to the point where normal, mutual-supportive relationships break down and the society falls apart. Procreation stops or becomes perverted and / or individuals become so self-centered that they refuse to defend or protect those most vulnerable – mostly women and children.

    While liberals tend to believe in collectivism, that is usually just another way to pass the buck to uncaring, underfunded government agencies or to avoid personal responsibility for the care and protection of their more vulnerable neighbors. Conservatives will generally take personal responsibility for defending and assisting those less capable and generally chafe against hte liberals laws that demand that the vulnerable NOT be assisted by anyone but collectivist, faceless government agencies – no Church groups, no community groups – only welfare is to be allowed to aid the vulnerable.

    As to human nature, it’s a demonstrable fact that people do not act contrary to their closely-held values. Expecting Trump to suddenly become altruistic and responsible after 70+ years of irresponsible, selfish and petty behavior violates the observed tenets of human nature.

  • chemical

    I will have differences in terms of faith. Plus, just see the current battles on LGBT stuff to see the vast gulf people have in what are family values and decency.

    It’s not that conservatives don’t value family — I’ll take Illinois’s comments at his word.

    The 5 “conservative” values Illinois listed — faith, decency, honor, family, and community — can come into conflict with one another. Just yesterday I read a heartbreaking story about a trans woman who, on coming out, her conservative family kicked her out of the house, and she had a pretty rough life. That family placed faith and community (what would the neighbors say if our boy is a girl?) over family, decency, and honor. I think that most of us don’t even realize that we compromise on our principles like this all the time.

    I’ve found that by minimizing faith, I can maintain the other 4 at high levels, in addition to other values. Obviously your life story is different, and I don’t think you have ever been forced into dishonesty or other vices by your church, like I was when I was religious.

  • Michael Weyer

    I won’t hijack this thread on a huge fight with stuff there I think is wrong (such as the climate change debate). But you hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph to show that despite how much we disagree on many things, we are on the same page regarding Trump.

  • Michael Weyer

    Again, this thing of Obama being a power-hungry tyrant is baffling. My uncle is a lifelong Republican (who loathes Trump with a passion) and he rolled his eyes on how Fox made Obama out to be this radical leftist when “he’s the most moderate Democrat you can ask for.” Indeed, the biggest complaint on Obama from liberals was that he didn’t go nearly far enough left for their tastes.

    And the respect he showed for the office was clear as he didn’t pick Twitter fights with dead men and did quietly leave office when his term was up. This idea of him as a “tyrant” is just ridiculous, especially when compared to Trumo’s open behavior.

  • Ronald Langdon

    Laugh out loud!! Amish is on the way out. Watch him fall . Susan always grasping at straws.

  • chemical

    After reviewing this more thoroughly, there are 3 principles listed here where you would find common ground with most liberals:
    #4, Principle of prudence. I’d agree that there is something to be said about careful planning of the long-term consequences of your actions. I feel that Kirk mischaracterizes liberals here — just because we’d advocate for making a large change to society doesn’t mean that we haven’t considered the implications of doing so.
    #9, Prudent restraint upon power. Kirk mentions French and Russian revolutionaries here, because why? To associate liberals with them? We’re not anarchists.
    #10, Permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. Again, Kirk lies about liberals here, claiming that we would reject everything old for anything new. There are plenty of old ideas out there that stand the test of time. It’s just that my side doesn’t have a problem with attacking something that’s been venerated for a long time, if we have evidence to believe that it shouldn’t have been venerated as much as it is.

    Decent article with a few solid ideas, but I feel like Kirk should have spent more time defending his own ideas rather than attack his strawman liberal ideas. Kirk also fails to recognize the difference between most liberals and radical anarchists.

  • Annemarie

    Does some of the reliance on government go back to the Depression? Hoover had very few tools at his disposal to fix the economy (and the fear of fascism and anarchy was part of it too. I think there was pressure to solve the problem fast before society imploded). It required public works and other large-government solutions. What’s interesting is why big government didn’t go away, post-war. In fact, investment in infrastructure gave us the highway system. Social security gave the elderly who weren’t being cared for by family a decent life. So maybe there were parts of big government that people liked and that made our lives better.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong. In fact, local solutions work very well for some things. (Opportunity zones can help the economy if they’re done right, and I’m a huge fan of mentoring). And sometimes big-government approaches have unintended consequences. (Well, I hope they’re unintended…looking at you, rising cost of healthcare.) But it seems that now some of the problems we’re facing are structural and I don’t know how they can be addressed locally. The money is just too huge and the powerful are just too entrenched.

  • Ellen Elmore

    Thank you Susan for pointing out just how hypocritical the House Freedom Caucus is. I’m glad Amash left the group. He gets my vote for president if he runs next year.

  • Michael Weyer

    I remember the story when they were trying to push that horrible medical care bill (the one so bad places as far left as Huff Post and far right as Brietbart actually agreed it would be a terrible drain on taxpayers) and Steve Bannon burst into a HFC meeting to tell them “you’re voting on it, end of discussion.”

    One member fired back “the last person who told me I had to do something without question was my daddy when I was 18. And I didn’t listen to him then.” I’m starting to wonder if that might have been Amash.

  • Michael Weyer

    That’s a great point. It’s tricky as I agree, sometimes government can overreach and can be bloated but I have bad experience with local governments being too slow on things and just as corrupt. The post WWII years did change our live for things we take for granted. It’s a tough one as I do think some tech companies could do more without ultra-strict government regulations on them yet I agree some regulations are needed. You can’t just issue a big blanket “good or bad” statement on them given the complexity.

  • chemical

    I’ve reviewed the li​nk that Blue Tail posted, and there are a few “conservative” principles there that most liberals, myself included, would agree with. Mainly #4, #9, and #10. I went into more depth in response to Blue Tail’s comment.

    The point that I’m trying to make here is that us liberals do in fact have principles, and it’s not the strawman principles Kirk is describing, nor your “collectivism”. Of course, describing them fully would be very lengthy and I probably could write a post as long as Kirk’s article (and no, it’s not Das Kapital). But for brevity’s sake, we place a high value on fairness, justice, and equality. These are placed higher than maintaining the social orders and hierarchies you’re describing, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t value these at all.

    Regarding Trump, he has no values besides self-promotion and increasing his own wealth. And you’re right in regard to the fact that he isn’t going to change. He has no reason to. Given any situation Trump is put in, I think we’d both agree that he’d pick the path that would make him the most wealthy, regardless of the law, decency, or any of our shared values. Trump violates liberal principles just as much as he violates conservative ones. Maybe more so.

  • Cousin_Ken

    Thank You BTG. Very good source and reads.

  • guy
  • ColoradoSusan

    Susan Wright: “Amash has continued to show himself a beacon of rational thought and stoic conservatism”.

    Let’s see:
    – Right to Life pulled their endorsement from Amash in 2012, and rated his voting stance on abortion as the 7th lowest among Republicans
    – Amash did not vote to defund Planned Parenthood
    – He voted No to take away certain federal grants for sanctuary cities
    – Amash refused to defend ICE from liberals’ demands to abolish it
    – He opposed completion of the Keystone Pipeline, even though he had supported it before.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    You can stop defending Obama any time now.

    His predilection for grabbing more and more unauthorized power is known. HIs corruption and racism are well documented as is his anti-American and pro-Muslim actions – not the least of which was surrendering Iraq to ISIS AFTER the war had been won. Even though Obama only had to sign off on keeping troops in Iraq (after all negotiations to do so had been finalized), he refused to do so, pulled our troops out, knowing that the fledgling Iraqi army would collapse, allowing a power vacuum for ISIS and Iran to fill.

    Obama even supplied Iran with pallets full of US cach to help finance their terrorism.

    All of which you are currently defending…..

    Unreasonable (cultish) defense of Obama is one of the major hallmarks of a liberal left-winger – regardless of what you call yourself.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Now for each of those bills, find out WHY he voted the way he did.

    What were the poison-pills that the talking points you enumerated were designed to cover-up and hide ?

    What were the OTHER anti-Constitutional components of those bills ?

    If you are going to argue base on yes/no votes about bills for which you only present partisan talking-points, your argument is worthless and deserves no response.

  • ColoradoSusan

    I actually do know the reasons Amash voted against those bills. Exs: He voted against defunding Planned Parenthood and completing the Keystone Pipeline because he believes it is inappropriate to name specific organizations or companies in bills.

    I don’t know all the reasons that Right to Life pulled their endorsement of him and ranked him 7th lowest of all Republicans in Congress on abortion issues.

    In addition, I don’t know why he mysteriously failed to defend ICE against liberals’ demands that it be shut down, when he had before declared support for ICE. Did he ever explain his refusal to defend ICE?

  • Michael Weyer

    Personally, I’ll give him props for even bothering to read a full bill as it’s well known how few in Congress (on both sides) actually do that.

  • chemical

    How is taking away federal grants from sanctuary cities a conservative position? That makes it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs, and isn’t in line with small government conservatism (i.e., you have the federal government trying to dictate how cities enforce the law).

    Generally speaking, most law enforcement officials aren’t opposed to sanctuary cities. Basically the sanctuary cities issue was the federal government trying to dictate to local law enforcement how to enforce federal immigration law. Cities didn’t like this because it made it harder for local police to deal with immigrant communities. If police were dealing with crime in an immigrant community, and an illegal immigrant was a witness, the feds wanted the city to detain and deport that person. The immigrant community saw this happen and learned not to talk to the police, ever.

    You know who benefitted from this overreach? Drug cartels. They knew they could victimize immigrant communities with impunity, because who are they going to go to? The police? They will just deport them.

    So local law enforcement decided to let a few things slide a bit, in order to be able to establish a presence with immigrant communities. It’s much easier to police people when the people actually trust the police and don’t think that talking to them means you get disappeared somewhere. At the end of the day, there was a legal fight over this, and the ruling was against the federal government — they can’t force local law enforcement to enforce federal law.

  • Hi Ken

    Good to hear from you.

    Being a Jefferson-Madisonian republican I don’t fully subscribe to Kirk’s brand of conservatism, but the ten general principles he defines are solid. My major complaint with Kirk is in his over-reliance on Edmund Burke and the twists and turns he uses to promote him above others.

    For example Kirk claims that the Founders were not Lockeans, and the majority of Americans at the time were more influenced by moralist Thomas Browne and Burke than John Locke. Yet a resolution drafted by both Jefferson and Madison for the University of Virginia says otherwise.

    Then there is Founder James Wilson who rebukes Burke and concludes: I have now no hesitation whether we should or should not subscribe the creed of Mr. Burke: that creed, which is contradictory to itself, cannot, in every part, be sound and orthodox.

  • ColoradoSusan

    In 1996, Congress enacted a law that bans sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are violating that law.

    The Court ruling stated that the *Trump administration* cannot withhold federal grant money. But Congress does have the authority to withhold federal funding. That is what Amash voted against.

  • Michael Weyer

    And in this week’s episode of The Apprentice: White House Edition, Sarah Sanders is stepping down at the end of the month.

    I guess three years of repeating Trump’s lies on a daily basis and excusing his behavior were too much for her to take. Expect publishing houses to be on her door offering major bucks for her memoirs.

  • Cousin_Ken

    Wow, bonus material.
    Thank you for digging deep and sharing these founding gold sources.
    Off to read “Thomas Jefferson & James Madison’s
    Guide to Understanding and Teaching the Constitution”
    As ever,Godspeed,

  • Cousin_Ken

    Please don’t fear the cult.

    Happy trails to Mr. Amash if he is lifted up by independents. May he and his support stay true to each other.
    A close association in a long State qualified independent party blew me off by endorsing Donald Trump as a “winner” because he said so, and they were tired of loosing on principle. Justin Amash has been healing my poor spirit.

  • ColoradoSusan

    Your most recent reply to me (5 hours ago) is waiting on moderation. However, I was able to read it on the disqus site. So I’m replying to that post now, in case it doesn’t get approved.

    You offer me “picks”, but the options you offer don’t fit for me. My pick, my choice, is the rule of law. If we don’t like a law, we can change it. Until then, I support following the laws on the books. Including the 1996 law prohibiting sanctuary areas.

    I am aware that there is no law stating that Congress must take away federal funding from sanctuary cities, by the way.

    You and I just have a difference of opinion. If we were both in Congress, I’d vote one way and you would vote the other. This issue doesn’t feel that important to me, actually. It’s a difference of opinion. I can live with that, as I’m sure you can.
    Be well!

  • chemical

    Pat​heos installed a pretty strict filter recently. Even some innocuous words will get a comment flung into moderation (including, hilariously, one of the books in the Bible).

    My point is the sanctuary city bans don’t uphold conservative values, liberal values, or the rule of law. I think I’ve made my point regarding conservative and liberal values already. Regarding the rule of law, as I mentioned, the sanctuary city bans discourage immigrant communities from cooperating with law enforcement, which makes it harder for them to do their jobs. You get a choice: Work with immigrant communities to tackle gangs, or deport people who have been who are technically illegal immigrants because their parents brought them here when they were 2 years old and their visas have expired since then, and let gangs take over.

    People are more important than laws. We create law to protect people, and if a law fails to do that, then it isn’t worth following.

  • ColoradoSusan

    I had a lengthy post on Patheos deleted as “spam”. I contacted Patheos, no one got back to me, I let it go.

    I don’t believe that there is a laundry list of conservative actions nor beliefs. People are different, sometimes we see things differently. Conservatives can disagree.

    My original post regarding Amash contained several points about his voting record, which I think many would see as “not conservative”, particularly his low rating by Right to Life.

    Now, I believe that I can see at least some of your points about withholding federal funding from sanctuary cities. However, I disagree with you because I believe rule of law is essential. If being a sanctuary city is in violation of federal law (and it is my understanding that it still is), shouldn’t there be a consequence for that?

    The reason this country works, when it does, is because one of our founding principles is rule of law, as opposed to rule of men. If laws are not adhered to, chaos occurs. If laws are not followed, and we just say, Oh well, everybody do what you want, it’s all good, then why make any laws at all? We can read the reasons our Founders placed rule of law above rule of men in the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers.

    We’re not arresting mayors of sanctuary cities. (And I am not saying that we should.) So what do we do?

    There are good reasons for not having sanctuary cities. If a violent felon is released from prison or jail, and he is slated to be deported because of those crimes, I want local law enforcement to be allowed to work with ICE. Many LE are absolutely prohibited from working with ICE, from even talking with ICE. I do not agree with that. Who is a city council to order how that city’s Police Dept. should be run? And I have read plenty of stories of police officers who are not happy about being forced to release illegal criminals instead of helping ICE to deport them. This release program endangers residents, whether those residents are American citizens or not.