Libertarian Justin Amash Attacks Donald Trump; Why? [VIDEO]

When Justin Amash attacks the President is he upholding principle or just being an arrogant jerk?

I’m not surprised that Justin Amash attacks some of Trump’s policies. He’s got a very different political philosophy than the President. But seeking out common cause with CNN? I don’t see any excuse for that.

Notice that Amash first points out the travel ban doesn’t include Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or many other countries. Then later he agrees that the ban could be interpreted as warfare against the Muslim world? It would have been the easiest thing in the world to point out the contradiction to Anderson Cooper, but instead Amash covers it up. He could have also pointed out the list of nations came from Barack Obama, or asked why, if there was no legitimate security concern, did critics say that the ban could turn Muslims to terrorism. Why, as a libertarian, was Amash more concerned about a ban rather than our bombing campaigns?

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Sean Hannity Promises to “ROCK” Midterms with McCaskill Video

In other words, Amash the libertarian played the part of the Liberal and used all his prestige to support Cooper’s Liberal narrative. He could have both agreed and disagreed, but he wasn’t interested. As a result, Amash has become the media’s darling. The Wall Street Journal, thus, glorifies him as the Republican anti-Trump:

President Donald Trump’s “constant fear-mongering’’ about terrorism is “irresponsible and dangerous.’’ He needs to “stop attacking the legitimacy of the judiciary.’’ He picked an attorney general with “anti-liberty” positions on surveillance and police seizure of property.

Those tough assessments come not from one of the president’s critics in the Democratic Party, but from a conservative Republican House member whose district decisively backed Mr. Trump in the election.

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan has emerged as one of the leading Republican critics of the president, using a tool Mr. Trump himself often employs—an assertive presence on Twitter—to challenge and even taunt the president. While other House Republicans who were skeptical of Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign have since toned down their criticism, Mr. Amash, who has 100,000 Twitter followers, has remained a vocal critic.

Mr. Amash says his opposition is based on principle, as a libertarian concerned about government overreach and adherence to the Constitution. While many Republican lawmakers hold similar beliefs, Mr. Amash has been an especially outspoken proponent of smaller government, even on issues—such as reducing surveillance—where his views put him out of step with the more mainstream elements of the GOP.

I don’t want Amash to stop advocating for smaller government, but I think he will damage his principles if he uses them to support CNN. Worse, he supports the Deep State and the lie that Russia influenced the election.

Mr. Amash says he supports congressional investigations into alleged communications between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives, and on Friday requested an immediate briefing from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey and Michael Dempsey, the acting Director of National Intelligence.

Naturally, he advertised that request on Twitter. If Justin Amash continues to spread that lie, as far as I’m concerned, he deserves to lose his seat in Congress when he is up for re-election.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.