It appears to us the #NeverTrump cabal had two kinds of members; those who honestly could not bring themselves to support Donald Trump because of his past personal conduct, and those who are actually closer to Hillary Clinton ideologically and opposed Donald Trump because they support amnesty for illegal aliens, open borders, Big Government, a no-win foreign policy or are wilfully blind to the Islamist threat.
Please tell us what you think: Who among the #NeverTrumpers are Redeemable and who are now Irrelevent?
CHQ Chairman Richard A. Viguerie and our colleague constitutional lawyer Mark Fitzgibbons made the argument in a recent op-ed in The Washington Times that two debates dominating our politics today show that, while conservatives, neocons and libertarians often make common cause in politics, the conservative formula of constitutional government informed by God's laws offers a better future for American liberty, prosperity and security.
No one emerges from World War I with much honor, especially Democrat President Woodrow Wilson. He unforgivably dragged Americans into other people’s war. A century ago many Americans succumbed to Britain’s deceitful propaganda campaign. On the centennial of the Lusitania’s demise Americans should remember the importance of just saying no. Now as then Americans need a president and Congress that believe war to be a last resort for use only when necessary to protect this nation, its people, liberties, and future.
Reagan’s mantra was “peace through strength.” Peace was the end, strength the means. He focused his attention on the Soviet Union and its advanced outposts, especially in the Western Hemisphere. But he used the new capabilities created almost not at all.
Will the hawks have the clout to push the Syria issue, or will they be sidelined by a growing anti-interventionism within the GOP?
Newt Gingrich, a neocon hawk, says the U.S. military interventions he used to support has backfired and needs to be re-evaluated.
Can you violate the Constitution to save it, or save the Union? Lincoln decided he could and he must. Can presidents today violate the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth and the Ninth Amendments, as well as a variety of statues to fight a “war on terror?” Apparently, Jonathan S. Tobin, Senior Online Editor of Commentary magazine thinks presidents can and should.
She's a carpetbagger and has no voting record. Voters are sick of hawkish neocons and dynasty holders.
Two of the limited government constitutional conservative “boat rockers,” Representatives Trey Radel (FL-19) and Tom Massie (KY-4), whom we endorsed in the 2012 primaries are living-up to our expectations and fighting to force the Obama administration back inside the strict limits of the Constitution – especially with regard to Obama’s foolish adventure into the Syrian civil war.
As Senator Rand Paul noted, the problem “with constantly intervening in these troubled parts of the world is that there are often no clear good guys or bad guys. Today's ally can quickly become tomorrow's enemy. This should be a paramount and obvious concern, but in Washington it is almost always treated as an afterthought.” Obama, neo-cons in Congress, the 40 U.S. military personnel we just sent to Egypt as “peacekeepers,” and the average American taxpayer, must now face the reality that, despite the trillions invested, our American government has done a lousy job of picking winners and losers in foreign political contests.