Preserve, protect, defend

Preserve, Protect, Defend
by Michael Spencer

I am frequently asked to explain what is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. As anyone who has read the philosophy of this web site knows, I have a clear opinion on that subject. In short, Republicans seek to preserve what is essential about American life, while Democrats seek to replace what is essential with their own liberal brand of tyranny. There are many, many other differences, but this is the persuasive one.

This is often why Republicans seem to be the stupid party and the do-nothing party. Rather than impose, impose, impose in the process of government, Republicans prefer to reduce the role of the Federal government or to use it in a focused and limited manner. So while Democrats are constantly pushing for more, Republicans are frequently fighting for less. This makes Republicans seem appealing to more liberty-minded people, and less appealing to more coercively minded people. Democrats actually believe people’s problems can be solved by government. To a Republican, this is the lunacy, as all of human history demonstrates.

Part and parcel of this difference is the attitude each side has towards the Constitution of the United States. During the Presidential debates, Mr. Gore proudly declared that the Constitution was a living document with manifold new meanings for intelligent Democrats to discover. Just think, he opined, of what untold treasures are still to be mined from its pages: new rights, new obligations, new programs. (SHUDDER!!) At the same time, he decried the “strict constructionism” of Mr. Bush and the Republicans. We all know what that means, Mr. Gore said with terror: actually going by what the Constitution says! (Insert freaky music from “Psycho” here.)

Now, if you are one of those persons prone to think that Mr. Gore is correct, I would like you to meditate upon what happened to the United States Constitution in its last few hours in the hands of one Bill Clinton.

“…and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States…” Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1. When Republicans read this, it seems obvious that the Founders felt the balance of powers was served by having a safety valve on the judiciary. The power to pardon insured that there was a hope beyond the judicial system when the system failed to take everything into account. Republicans have used this power without hesitation. President Nixon used it over a thousand times. In none of those instances, one should note, was there ever the hint or suspicion of corruption.

For Mr. Clinton, however, this Constitutional power fell into the same category as the Lincoln Bedroom and the interns: something to be used for his own ends. In short, Mr. Clinton saw the U.S. Constitution as a way to make money. He used the pardoning process to garner donations for the DNC, his wife’s campaign and his Presidential library. I’m telling you people, if this doesn’t offend you there is something seriously wrong with you. You have got to be dead to not wince at this kind of abuse.

The real pain for many of us comes when we remember the words of the Presidential oath of office. The President pledges to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution itself. He doesn’t pledge to not screw in the Oval Office or not rent out the Lincoln Bedroom. I guess we have to give you that much, Mr. Clinton. But it says you are to stake your honor to not abuse and harm the Constitution. In failing that charge, Bill Clinton has surpassed any other President in history.

As personally corrupt as Mr. Clinton is, however, he is performing right on cue. Remember Al Gore’s comment to the press that there was “no controlling legal authority” regulating fund-raising in the White House? These are the people crying out for campaign finance reform, and they just put Terry Macauliffe in the DNC chair? This is the party that was willing to overturn a certified election just because they didn’t like the result. Is anyone surprised?

This contemptuous use of the Constitution is, in my opinion, borderline treason. When (not if, but when) we discover that Mark Rich funneled money for a pardon, we will be looking at a pardon issued to a man who has perpetually done business with the enemies of the United States and its allies. Iraq and Iran are both his customers. This is a man who has renounced U.S. citizenship and bought citizenship in Spain and Israel. There is now emerging evidence that Clinton was manipulating his own Justice Department head, Eric Holder, to get what he wanted without the usual review. And now we find out DNC officials may have been aware and involved in all of this. it’s more disgusting than Madeline Albright in a bikini.

What we’re seeing is an attitude towards the entire process of government; an attitude towards the role of government and the opportunity to govern. This is the flagrant disregard of the rule of law that amounts to a prelude to tyranny.

Reasonable Democrats (and there are many of those) have a pea-green look on their face about all this. The usual apologists are silent. The few who venture on to the talk circuit look like whipped dogs. The more we learn, the worse Hillary dresses. Soon I expect her to shave her head and go for a Ghandi look.

The Constitution doesn’t just dictate the design of government; it reveals the nature of those who govern. By that test, Mr. Clinton is a disgrace to America. Send him to Switzerland.

%d bloggers like this: