First step: do not pick anyone who comes up through Harvard/Yale/Princeton. You cannot succeed at those schools without espousing liberal values.
Many ambitious graduates will put on a conservative disguise, as that is a path to power, but once in power their liberal beliefs will be revealed.
I’d like to see a short, simple party platform with entries like:
— We support the Second Amendment. We oppose all gun control.
— We are pro-Life. We oppose abortion in all cases.
And I want politicians who support (in word and deed) that platform 100% of the time. They should be perfectly in line with the core party principles.
The party should not provide any funding to anyone who deviates (in word or deed) from the platform. We need discipline.
Easy. They are recommended by the Federalist Soicety and/or RINOs.
If they propose a “government solution”, they ain’t.
if they saw, “we” when speaking of government, they ain’t.
if they speak of “you” as “civilians”, they ain’t.
if they think taxes can be “invested” by government, they ain’t.
just listen to them and take your blinders off.
They reveal themselves, cuz they just can’t help it.
OHIO PING!
Please let me know if you want on or off the Ohio Ping list.
IMPORTANT READ FOR STEVE STIVERS CONSTITUENTS
How to Identify Those Souters in Sheep’s Clothing
Townhall.com ^ | May 20, 2021 | Brian McNicoll
Posted on 5/20/2021, 8:47:14 AM by Kaslin
You want to find out how to separate the REAL conservatives (i.e. those intent on using the authority of the office that their running for to protect our liberties, not to limit them) from those merely claiming to be conservative to get votes? It is easy:
https://lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
“Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician — or political philosophy — is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians — even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership — hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician — or political philosophy — can be put.
If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude — toward your ownership and use of weapons — conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend — the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights — do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil — like “Constitutionalist” — when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician — or political philosophy — is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun — but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school — or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway — Prussian, maybe — and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man — and you’re not — what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?
On the other hand — or the other party — should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue — health care, international trade — all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn’t true, is it?
I think the thing to look at with potential justices, are their dissents. Opinions tend to be consensus documents, arrived at by consultation between multiple judges. As such, they tend to be somewhat watered down. Dissents, tend to tell you much more about what a justice really thinks.
Souter was pushed by Rudman and Sununu. Rudman first convinced Sununu (allegedly due to Rudman personally wanting a social liberal to replace Brennan) and together they worked on Poppy Bush. Bush went along with it, but I wouldn’t call him innocent as he actively chose to not ask too many questions or to care too much about social issues. Finding someone who would avoid a fight was more important to him. As for Souter himself, he lied as necessary to get the job. He said the right things about philosophy to the right people and they bought it.
Now, whether there was an additional layer of conspiracy involved in his selection, or whether they knew he’d be as left wing as Ginsburg, I’m not sure, but that’s a chunk of the story right there.
Oh, and I’d love to know the real story about his jogging incident where he got mugged. The rumor is that he was out cruising, but there are other possibilities.