Hastert’s Perverted Actions Consistent with Character to be Expected of Oath-Breakers
“Nothing is more disturbing than having ‘serial child molester’ and ‘Speaker of the House’ in the same sentence,” Federal Judge Thomas Durkin declared as he sentenced former House speaker Dennis Hastert, 74, to 15 months in federal prison, USA Today reported. Hastert pleaded guilty last October to bank fraud linked to hushing up the “molesting” of teenage boys more than 30 years ago, when he was a high school wrestling coach.
“The court also fined Hastert $250,000 and sentenced him to two years of supervised release after leaving prison. Hastert must register as a sex offender,” the story elaborates, noting he’d have received a stronger sentence on sex abuse charges had the statute of limitations not expired on those.
Disregarding the contortions needed to find original intent-based Constitutional powers for federal, as opposed to state jurisdiction in the case (and recall the pretext for initiating the assault on the Branch Davidians at Waco was to save children from abuse, and we saw how well that worked out), Hastert’s fall is a “hoist on his own petard” ending to a career of power and arrogance that included eight years being next in the succession line for the presidency after the Vice President. He was instrumental in advancing the federal usurpation of powers, betraying his oath, his constituents, and the Republic.
And that included endorsing infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Gun owners with long memories will shed no tears over Hastert’s exposure and downfall. Many of us still remember May, 1999, when, per CNN, “House Speaker Dennis Hastert entered the fierce debate on gun control … saying he favored raising the minimum age for owning a handgun to 21 and requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows.” It was especially “puzzling” at the time, as “[a]n aide from [then-Senate Majority Leader Trent] Lott’s office told CNN that … the gun control issue is not slated to come up in the House of Representatives anytime soon.”
“Where the hell is it within the Constitutional powers of the federal government to enact any kind of gun control legislation at all?” I asked in an angry open letter response to Hastert (see end of article). “Where the hell do you get off endorsing a handgun ban for a segment of our population that is old enough to vote, to marry, to parent and to go to war and die protecting your sorry politically opportunistic ass?”
Adding insult to injury, the following month, Hastert refused to use his position of influence “to ‘whip’ members into a unified party line” on guns, The Los Angeles Times noted. “Hastert has spoken favorably of new gun safety measures since the Littleton, Colo., high school massacre.”
Curiously, even after those betrayals, NRA still gave Hastert an “A” rating. Evidently giving them some of what they wanted, including access to his office, was enough to induce Fairfax to overlook the infringements he favored imposing. It’s not like we haven’t seen that time and again.
In any case, with the triumphant attacks on Republicans and with the predictable “progressive” braying, principled “no compromise” gun owners can at least prove a substantial level of separation from the inevitable guilt-by-association conflation. That the charges came when Hillary Clinton’s star was rising amidst allegations of her criminality, was perhaps to be expected as a politically smart way to take such focus off the presumptive Democrat front-runner.
Regardless, it illustrates that the greatest danger to Republicans comes not from principled conservatives criticizing betrayals by party elites, but from those elites’ own actions. It also makes it fair to wonder if anyone else in the leadership is similarly vulnerable and compromised – a theory some have suggested as a potential explanation for a succession of seeming surrenders (key word “seeming”) following the 2014 political party polarity shift.
Here’s the open letter to Hastert I referred to above. It’s worth noting that someone who favored denying guns to others is now a “prohibited person”:
In No Uncertain Terms
by David Codrea
19 May, 1999
Rep. Dennis Hastert
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-1101
While I normally maintain a polite tone in letters to legislators, these are not normal times. Or, I should say, your recent statements are not normal for someone who represents himself as the leader of the Republican party in the House of Representatives.
As a Republican, I expect you to understand the principles of Constitutional conservatism. I expect you to understand the meaning of enumerated federal powers, and the off-limits proscriptions articulated in the Bill of Rights. I expect you to abide by your oath of office. In short, I expect you to be different from the slimebag socialists.
Because you are not, and because you have either stupidly, spinelessly or evilly advocated the imposition of additional coercive infringements against my right to keep and bear arms, you have forfeited any claim to civility from me. I will speak to you clearly so that you understand my utter contempt for you as a legislator who supports the destruction of my rights, for you as an American who has betrayed the birthright of your countrymen, and for you as a man who places position above principle. I will speak to you in no uncertain terms, so that you understand my resolve to oppose the tyranny that you enable, represent and feed off of.
I must admit that your motivation for enraging and alienating millions of traditionally Republican voters confounds me- what do you hope to gain? Do you think that liberals will now support you? Do you think that the media will suddenly start editorializing in your favor? Do you think that the gun banners will now go home sated?
Are you really that dumb? Or are you just corrupt? Or both?
Where the hell is it within the Constitutional powers of the federal government to enact any kind of gun control legislation at all? Where the hell do you get off endorsing a handgun ban for a segment of our population that is old enough to vote, to marry, to parent and to go to war and die protecting your sorry politically opportunistic ass?
As a lifelong Republican, campaign volunteer and financial contributor, here’s my oath to you and your fellow subversive trough-feeding poltroons in the GOP — and I guarantee you, I take mine a lot more seriously than you take yours. I am through rewarding unprincipled political parasites who sell out my rights as an appeasement gesture to the socialists. You are undeserving of anything but loathing. The only Republicans who will ever receive my support again will be those principled few who understand and honor their oaths to abide by and defend the Constitution.
I intend to do everything I can to encourage enough fellow gun owners to deny turncoats like yourself the narrow margin of victory that most campaigns are won by. If this means the Republicans become minority players, so be it. That’s what you get for taking citizens like me for granted. That’s what you get for arrogantly deeming citizens like me so desperate that we will continually allow you to sell us out. That’s what you get for arrogantly presuming that citizens like me have no choice but to settle for “the lesser of two evils.” That’s what you get for your treacherous and uncalled for surprise attack against our rights.
As a party, the Libertarians are the only ones who consistently and steadfastly support the Second Amendment, and they have earned the support I would have given you.* I have heard some decry this position, calling it a “wasted” vote, pointing out the draconian gun control measures the Democrats will impose should they gain ascendancy. I prefer voting my conscience. And I prefer facing this eventuality sooner, rather than later, before bloated hacks like you capitulate away all of our freedoms, including our unalienable and Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend them.
In all sincerity,
* Hopefully, we all grow as we learn and gain life experience. While I embrace a mix of conservative and certain libertarian principles, the Libertarian Party’s culturally suicidal stance on “immigration” (invasion) disqualifies it from my support.