Hear Dr. Chris fact-check his opponent, Representative Jim Banks. Please see below for the transcript.
Hello. I am Dr. Chris Magiera from Warsaw, Indiana, and I am running for the United States House of Representatives from the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana.
Every day, the career politicians and the massive Administrative State that they support infringe upon your God-given Natural Rights and Liberties. This
May June 2020 election will be a Republican Party primary to determine who runs in the November general election. I will be challenging the incumbent, Representative Jim Banks, for the Republican nomination.
The voters of Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District will have to make a choice, a very crucial choice. The Founders created the Constitution in order to form a central government whose ONLY function would be to secure the inalienable rights of We the People. So, the person representing you in Washington will need to have an absolute dedication to the principles of our constitutional republic. Since I have never held elective office, you must base your decision, in my case, on the wisdom and virtue I have gained over 37 years of medical practice, and my pledge to ONLY vote, 100% of the time, for legislation that is consistent with the original intent, understanding and meaning of the Founders’ Constitution.
But what about my opponent? As an incumbent, he has a documented voting record to guide the choice of the voters. So, let’s take a look at his campaign literature and do a little fact-checking. It says that he is “answering the call,” but does he have “the right stuff”? On his lit card, there are eight talking points. Let’s examine them:
Number 1: “Proven Conservative Leader.” Okay, what is a “Conservative”? That is someone who values tradition and resists change. But it is a fluid term. In 1716, the “Conservatives” were Crown loyalists, and our Founders were Liberals in the classical sense. My political philosophy is not rooted in relativism, but in the fixed nature of the Constitution. I am a constitutionalist, and that will not change with time. How about “Leader”? In my previous presentations, I have shown how my opponent does not demonstrate leadership qualities, but, instead demonstrates a lack of initiative with respect to novel action plans needed in the face of complex legislation. I am not now, nor will I ever be, a career politician. This frees me from the constraints of ambition and allows me to stand up to leadership of any kind—Republican, Democrat, or Presidential—when constitutional liberties are in jeopardy.
Number 2: “Voted to Fund President Trump’s Border Wall.” As covered in another presentation, that is absolutely true; he voted for HR 3219 (7/27/17) and HR 695 (12/20/18), both of which contained some form of “Wall” funding. However, neither bill was signed into law. What is needed is a “leader” who will spearhead an effort to change the House rules, making it easier to remove important and controversial issues from massive appropriation bills, so that they can be given due consideration.
Number 3: “Voted to End Sanctuary Cities.” This is a reference to HR 3003 – No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which was passed the House on 6/29/17, with Jim Banks voting “Yes.” The bill was never acted upon by the Senate. The problem with this issue is that such a law would most likely be seen by the Federal courts as violating the “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine,” which goes all the way back to James Madison in Federalist 46. Such legislation runs up against the 10th Amendment. The Federal government cannot compel state and local officials to enforce Federal laws if they choose not to. As I reviewed in a previous post on Immigration and Naturalization, this is a complex issue, and it’s going to require some comprehensive reforms and possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Number 4: “Voted for Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” This refers to HR 1 – Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. He voted “Yes” on 12/20/2017. It certainly was constitutional, and certainly was popular, but economists are mixed on its long-term effects. Some are concerned about the fact that it was deficit-financed to produce a quick “high” in the economy. Time will tell. From my standpoint, a much more effective recipe for long term economic prosperity and Administrative State reduction would have been to propose the repeal of the 16th Amendment, and take steps to eventually eliminate the Federal Reserve and its fiat money. That would eliminate two of the three Progressive measures of 1913 that promoted the malignant growth of the Administrative State and the erosion of our liberties.
Well, we are only halfway through this episode of “Mythbusters,” but I sense that everyone needs some time to digest the information. So, until the next episode, I implore you to remember that the Constitution was created to secure your God-given Natural Rights and Liberties. If elected to Congress from the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana, I pledge to constitutionally legislate 100% of the time, not delegate, so you don’t have to litigate, to reclaim your God-given Natural Rights and Liberties. In
May June 2020, vote The Constitution Solution. Vote Dr. Chris Magiera for Congress. Thank you.