Triad Conservative

The State of the GOP

Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review:

(W)hen you believe in something with all your heart and soul, as Democrats do, you will find a way to win even with zero branches of government in your corner. When you believe in nothing beyond the campaign promise, you will find a way to lose even with control of all three branches. In the case of Republicans, it’s even worse. They won’t even get on the playing field and take the first step in fighting for border security. The only first step they will take is the First Step Act, which is the first stage to dismantling Reagan’s successes on crime.

We Should Choose Russia Over China

Pat Buchanan:

The question... for our time is this: Can the U.S. pursue a Cold War policy of containment against both of the other great military powers, even as we maintain our Cold War commitments to defend scores of countries around the globe?

And, if so, for how long can we continue to do this, and at what cost?

Belatedly, the U.S. establishment has recognized the historic folly of having chaperoned China onto the world stage and seeking to buy her lasting friendship with $4 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense since Bush 41.

Consider how China has reciprocated America's courtship.

She has annexed the South China Sea, built air and missile bases on half a dozen disputed islets, and told U.S. ships and planes to stay clear.

She has built and leased ports and bases from the Indian Ocean to Africa. She has lent billions to poor Asian and African countries like the Maldives, and then demanded basing concessions when these nations default on the debts owed for building their facilities.

She has sent hundreds of thousand of students to U.S. colleges and universities, where many have allegedly engaged in espionage.

She kept her currency below market value to maintain her trade advantage and entice U.S. corporations to China where they are shaken down to transfer their technology secrets.

China has engaged in cyber theft of the personnel files of 20 million U.S. federal applicants and employees. She apparently thieved the credit card and passport numbers of 500 million guests at Marriott hotels over the years.

She has sought to steal the secrets of America's defense contractors, especially those working with the Navy whose 7th Fleet patrols the Western Pacific off China's coast.

She is believed to be behind the cybersecurity breaches that facilitated the theft of data on the U.S. F-22 and F-35, information now suspected of having played a role in Beijing's development of its fifth-generation stealth fighters.

Christians are persecuted in China. And Beijing has established internment camps for the Uighur minority, where these Turkic Muslim peoples are subjected to brainwashing with Chinese propaganda.

China's interests, as manifest in her behavior, are thus in conflict with U.S. interests. And the notion that we should continue to cede her an annual trade surplus at our expense of $400 billion seems an absurdity.

We have, for decades, been financing the buildup of a Communist China whose ambition is to expel us from East Asia and the Western Pacific, achieve dominance over peoples we have regarded as friends and allies since World War II, and to displace us as the world's first power.

Yet if engagement with China has failed and left us facing a new adversary with 10 times Russia's population, and an economy nearly 10 times Russia's size, what should be our policy?

Can we, should we, pursue a Cold War with Russia and China, using Kennan's containment policy and threatening war if U.S. red lines are crossed by either or both?

Should we cut back on our treaty commitments, terminating U.S. war guarantees until they comport with what are true vital U.S. interests?

Should we, faced with two great power adversaries, do as Nixon did and seek to separate them?

If, however, we conclude, as this city seems to be concluding, that the long-term threat to U.S. interests is China, not Putin's Russia, President Trump cannot continue a trade relationship that provides the Communist Party of Xi Jinping with a yearly $400 billion trade surplus.

A Complete Turnaround for the Left on Illegal Immigration

(HT: Fred)

They used to be right! Tucker Carlson does an amazing job laying out the evidence for the left's dizzying flip-flop:

Lawless, Lackluster Response of UNC Board of Governors on Silent Sam: Where is AG Josh Stein, NCGA?

Under state law, the UNC Board of Governors was required to restore Silent Sam to its former location or a similarly prominent location within 90 days. The law even specifies that any new site must be of similar "honor". That time frame has now elapsed. Tearing down Silent Sam was an act of rebellion against the people of the state of North Carolina for which students and faculty were partially responsible.

Since then, we have had instructors and teaching assistants threaten to withhold grades, and faculty members supporting it because of the proposal to place the monument in an on-campus museum even though the location would be far more remote than the previous location; and even though the Board of Trustees for the school was proposing to "contextualize" away its meaning.

Now, faculty are threatening to refrain from teaching the first week of classes in January.

It was against this background that the UNC Board of Governors met on Friday. Fortunately, they rejected the plan for the museum. However, there is no evidence that they have taken action against the faculty and staff who have been committing acts of extortion and implementing illegal strikes.

Furthermore, the Board did not make a decision to restore the monument to its former location. Instead, it appointed a 5-member committee to study the issue. They kicked the ball down the field because the committee is not due to report back to the full board until March 15. Meanwhile, as noted above, the deadline to restore the monument to its former location under state law has long since passed, and they are just now appointing a committee.

We learned that the Board chairman, Harry Smith, met with students and employees to "hear their concerns". It must be noted once again the every member of the Board of Governors, including the chairman, was appointed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. In addition, there is now a vague suggestion that the Board of Governors might seek the wherewithal to relocate the monument off-campus. If so, they would be rewarding the miscreants.

We now have a UNC Board of Governors that is in willful, flagrant violation of state law. And it is a Board that, by all external appearances, is not holding staff accountable for its illegal strikes and acts of extortion. We have not heard that they have had anyone terminated. And they have not fired UNC Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol Folt, which is long overdue.

The Board has the responsibility to act as the adults in the room-- to act like owners of the enterprise. Do you allow students and staff to run the show, and tolerate flagrant acts of rebellion and lawlessness? If so, the Board is itself lawless.

We were supposed to have had an investigation as to why UNC Chapel Hill police allowed the monument to be dismantled in the first place. But we have not heard a word about that. 

The question is what the reaction of the Republican General Assembly will be. I think it would be extremely appropriate for legislators to begin discussions regarding a partial defunding of UNC Chapel Hill and the entire UNC system. And the General Assembly should not even begin to entertain requests for a change in the state law regarding historical monuments to accommodate UNC Chapel Hill's lefties.

The other big question is what Attorney General Josh Stein is doing. After all, he is the state's chief law enforcement officer; and we have a UNC system school that is openly defying state law. In fact, UNC Chapel Hill and the Board of Governors are acting in open, willful violation of state law. And Stein is supposed to be enforcing the law. Where is he? 

Oh, yes... I remember. He is busy suing the Trump Administration repeatedly in a manner that does not appropriately express the will of the people of the state of North Carolina.

Of course, we can't ever expect Stein to do the right thing, because his worldview is ideologically programmed to do otherwise.

But Republican appointees on the UNC Board of Governors-- and the Republican General Assembly-- ought to insist on following the law. But they have not as of yet. It is time for them to collectively grow a backbone.

An Open Letter to Our Socialist Friends on the Obamacare Ruling

Dear friends within the media/left complex:

I know the news of the Obamacare ruling issued by the U.S. District Court Judge in Texas-- Reed O'Connor-- must have been a bit of a jolt. You have, after all, had a great deal invested in this particular law.

There is a lesson to be learned from this situation.

Judge O'Connor-- indeed, any district or appeals court judge-- should not be granted license to void the constitutionality of any law. He ought not have the power to issue a ruling that applies to the entire country. To the extent that the federal judiciary might have occasion to make such rulings, it ought to be at the level of the Supreme Court.

When you use district and appeals court judges to rule that laws are unconstitutional, it cuts both ways. Yes, your side wins much more often than you lose within the judiciary, but that does not make the situation any less... unjust. 

Moreover, let's remember that even the Supreme Court should not be regarded as the final arbiter dictating terms on the entire country. It should only issue interpretations in a manner that affects the parties to the proceeding. The idea that the Supreme Court has supremacy over the other two branches is profoundly mistaken. Yes, again, I know that your side wins much more often than you lose at this level, but that does not make the practice any more correct.

The long march through the institutions has been extremely productive for your side.

If you are unhappy over the Obamacare ruling, let's make a deal. Let's take away from the federal judiciary the powers it ought not have in the first place. And while we are doing it, let's make sure that they make rulings consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution, as written. After all, manufacturing new meanings as time passes is profoundly dishonest; and attempts to subvert the clearly defined process of amending the Constitution, using proper channels.

I now have some words of consolation. Judge O'Connor, unlike your judges, did not issue an injunction; and that appears to mean that nothing will happen until the case works its way up to the Supreme Court. Also, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh sit on the high court; and both had some role in saving Obamacare six years ago when its constitutionality was challenged.

I don't know whether your vicious, violent peers on the left will issue threats to these two justices. There will certainly be social and political pressure on them within Washington, D.C. circles. But let's remember that Republican Supreme Court Justices have a checkered record in general; so your chances at that level continue to be quite good. The true merits often do not matter.

The Establishment, after all, wants Obamacare to survive because it benefits major corporate players within four specific industries-- insurance companies, health care systems, Big Pharma and Big Data. 

So don't despair. Both major political parties work actively toward your twin goals of stifling statism and incremental socialism. The two parties just have different methods and approaches, but they work in the same direction. 

What did President Trump say after the ruling was announced? "Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions," Trump tweeted. Of course, such legislation, just like Obamacare, would be unconstitutional.

I think your cause is probably safe in the long run. 

Very truly yours,

TC

Complaints Like a Broken Record

Trump's Fury on Immigration

(Copied from Conservative Review)

The above chart provides a very dramatic picture with regard to what our country is experiencing with immigration. For much of the last century, levels have hovered around 200,000 new citizens naturalized per year. But since the 1980's and 1990's, that number has shot up to upwards of 600,000 -1,000,000 per year. And that does not even fully account for all the illegals among us, and for those on work visas. Those two groups provide even greater numbers.

There are a number of problems with this picture. First, it undermines wages and earnings for working people in the United States. Second, it makes it much more difficult to assimilate the new immigrants when such large numbers are involved. Third, it erodes national unity and cohesion when so many of these folks come from parts of the world that do not share our Western/ Christian heritage. And fourth, it undermines our national identity, and makes America less... American.

Those involved in advancing and passing the notorious 1965 immigration law that created this huge mess provided assurances at the time that the demographic mix of our nation would not change. Of course, this was pure blarney. It was their entire design to change it dramatically, and they have succeeded to such an extent that the nation's Christian majority, with firm roots in western civilization, will soon be a distinct minority. 

President Trump had a remarkable meeting discussing the border wall on Tuesday with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Schumer, of course, is part of the ethnic/religious group that played a key part in engineering our current high levels of immigration from non-Western nations; and that importantly perceived it would benefit from it. He therefore would naturally tend to have an intense interest in maintaining the current status quo. Of course, the fact that it also serves the political interest of the democratic socialist party and the donor class, from his perspective, would not diminish that intense interest even one iota.

Trump justifiably exhibited red-hot fury during the meeting. In fact, his countenance turned visibly red during the exchange. And he spoke repeatedly about the need for help from the socialists on his border wall; and how they were obstructing this possibility.

Fair enough, and true enough. But it doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, congressional Republicans have been among his biggest opponents on the immigration issue.

Recently, Congressman Bob Goodlatte from Roanoke told the story regarding how the immigration legislation favored by Trump failed to pass earlier this year: 

The GOP leadership let the House immigration reform die in June by allowing a critical bloc of GOP legislators to split their votes between two rival reform bills, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the retiring chairman of the House committee on the judiciary.

“The strategy of having two options really let people have an off-ramp — they could vote for the more conservative bill and against the other, or vote for the second bill and not the first,” Goodlatte said, adding:

That is just not a good strategy and I complained about it at the time. I said ‘You’ve got to narrow this down to one bill and then work really hard to get the members to vote for that one bill.’

Goodlatte’s statement matches the June statement by Rep. Jim Jordan, who said: “If our leadership had put the same whip effort behind that immigration legislation, Chairman Goodlatte’s legislation, it would have passed.”

Retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan made the decision to create the rival bill that blocked Goodlatte’s bill.

On November 30, Ryan told an interviewer that he preferred the second bill, which he credited to Florida GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo.

The Curbelo bill was drafted when Ryan exploited a pro-amnesty push by Curbelo and other business-first GOP legislators to push an amnesty for younger “DACA” illegals. Ryan blocked the amnesty push by crafting a pro-business “Goodlatte II” bill to sink Goodlatte’s bill.

Ryan said November 30:

On immigration, I really liked—I call it “the Curbelo bill,” it was Goodlatte II — the immigration compromise bill that I put on the floor in July, which satisfied the president’s four pillars.

However, the Ryan/Curbelo bill provided the GOP’s business donors with a much higher migrant inflow of cheap worker and extra consumers, compared to the Goodlatte bill.

“Our goal is to not cut legal immigration,” Rep. Carlos Curbelo told RollCall.com on June 8. The number of illegals who get green cards from the amnesty should be “as high a number as possible,” he said.

Many conservatives appreciate Trump's stance on illegal immigration because it rightfully insists upon the rule of law, and seeks to stop a situation that has been very wrongful for literally decades.  But again, some of his biggest opponents on this issue have been key leaders within the House GOP. And we have not even begun to discuss the Senate, where North Carolina's Thom Tillis continuously agitates for more visas for foreign workers.

I doubt we will see a videotaped, passionate confrontation between Trump and these key congressional Republicans. It just won't happen.

The wall Trump seeks is necessary... but is not sufficient. We need many more changes than just the wall to fix this overall situation. And now that the socialists will be controlling the House, that will be nearly impossible to achieve with legislation. The GOP had its chance; and it willfully screwed it up. 

Trump has now discussed using the military to build the wall. If that is an option, let's pursue it. And he ought to increase the extent to which he uses every administrative and legal prerogative within his legitimate executive powers to make policy adjustments, and defend them in court.

And if necessary, he ought to start vetoing those bills that advance the wrong immigration objectives, and that fail to advance those he espouses. He needs to play hard ball, as he seems to be promising. But he is turning out to be more of an establishment Republican than he represented himself to be during the 2016 presidential campaign, in part because of the Mueller investigation that was intended to keep him in line. We shall therefore see how this all unfolds.

Raleigh GOP Sticks It to Mark Harris

The North Carolina General Assembly today passed legislation that allows a new primary in the event the 9th congressional district election must be repeated.

This is extraordinarily convenient for the Raleigh GOP establishment to shunt Mark Harris aside. Harris defeated an establishment GOP incumbent/insider in the previous primary-- an unpardonable sin.

Nobody within the GOP is suggesting that Mark Harris had direct knowledge of any fraudulent campaigning; or that he approved of it. And in fact, it was apparently pursued through a consulting group that has been previously tied to the state GOP establishment.

Yet the GOP will label Harris as tainted. And the party has been very quick to concede that the election needs to be repeated. Remember how the party establishment had stuck up for Brett Kavanaugh just a couple of months ago. After all, he was one of their own. But Harris unquestionably is not.

And recall also how the party establishment deliberately undermined Roy Moore's candidacy in Alabama last year. Are you beginning to see a pattern?

Mark Harris is not the Right Kind of Republican.

His political identity is on the basis of his previous leadership of the marriage amendment, and his social conservative credentials. He is, of course, a Southern Baptist minister. The GOP really doesn't want candidates whose primary focus or interest is in this particular direction. While it is difficult to make the case that Harris is necessarily a constitutional conservative, he is certainly a cultural conservative.

Moreover, Harris has signed on to Trump's border security agenda. He understands that the position of the religious left demanding open borders is scripturally unsound.

The GOP establishment in Raleigh has done a dirty deed to a man who likely won the congressional election in the 9th district; and whose campaign made the mistake of using a corrupt establishment consulting group to assist with his campaign. They ought to be utterly ashamed.

"Non-profit" Aiding Kathy Manning, Robeson County Fraud Group for McCready the Same Entity

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the 9th Congressional District race. Fraud has been detected in Bladen and Robeson counties, and was apparently initiated by both major political parties.

I don't believe that Mark Harris was aware of what was being done to help him there; or that he would have approved of it.

Brant Clifton at the Daily Haymaker has been discussing multiple, repeated instances of fraud in Robeson County that had occurred over many years. During this most recent congressional race, an outfit called the Voter Participation Center was pushing absentee ballots.

And it was doing so in a questionable manner. Dan McCready was the intended beneficiary.

Readers might recall I had posted here about six weeks ago about a shady non-profit entity that was sending out mail pieces to assist Kathy Manning with her race against Ted Budd. It was called the Center for Voter Information.

It turns out that these two entities-- the Voter Participation Center pushing absentee ballots for Dan McCready in Robeson County, and the Center for Voter Information sending mail pieces for Kathy Manning in the Triad-- are apparently run by the same outfit. Both use a mail box at a UPS store on Wilmington Street in Raleigh as their return address. And A.P. Dillon (also known as Lady Liberty) reveals both have the same physical address in Washington, D.C. She states this is a Soros-funded effort.

The two most heavily contested congressional races in North Carolina involving Ted Budd and Mark Harris were both the object of illegal/unethical democratic socialist efforts that were apparently implemented by the same sleazy crowd, from the same Washington office.

It seems this might be something worth pursuing.

Harris, Budd-- can you hear this?

Anti-Soros