Eventually All The Pieces Fit Together

Today’s Washington Examiner is reporting that Donald Trump has named Senator Jeff Sessions as Chairman of his national security advisory committee. That explains a lot.

On February 28, Politico reported the following:

Donald Trump won another major endorsement Sunday, surprising the political world when he walked onto the stage for a rally in Madison, Ala., with Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions.

Two days ahead of Super Tuesday when 11 states will cast votes, Trump continues to dominate the national airwaves and demonstrate growing support from Republican elected officials.

I like Jeff Sessions, but that endorsement did not make sense to me. Ted Cruz is a much more obvious candidate for Jeff Sessions to endorse. They are much better aligned in terms of conservative values. With the announcement today, it is hard to look at this endorsement as anything other than a trade-off.

Articles Like This One Keep Us Divided

There is such a thing as the Washington establishment. It is to their advantage to create imaginary enemies for Americans within America to keep us from actually turning our attention to what is going on in Washington and dealing with it. Our current President is very adept at this tactic. For example, his statements and actions toward out policemen have put their lives at greater risk than ever. In creating the idea that police were people who abused their power, President Obama has divided Americans and reignited the issue of race. The media has helped with this. There are police who abuse their power, but they are a small minority.

Today, the New York Daily News posted an article by Shaun King that proclaims that Donald Trump proves evangelical Christianity is just white supremacy in disguise. I am deeply offended by that remark and do not believe it is true. I have no idea why anyone is supporting Donald Trump other than the fact that there are a lot of Americans who are angry. They feel that their voices are not being heard and that the policies of the Washington establishment are self-serving and hurting average Americans. How Donald Trump would be an answer to these problems is beyond me, but he is very good at voicing their anger.

Just for the record, I attended a conservative caucus in North Carolina late last year. This was before any voting had taken place. There were about 100 or so people there. The caucus was for President and North Carolina Senate. I don’t have numbers on this, but my guess would be that at least seventy-five percent of those attending would have described themselves as evangelical Christians. When the votes were tallied, Ted Cruz got 47, Ben Carson got 45, Donald Trump got 4, and Rand Paul got 1. If evangelical Christians are white supremacists, this group obviously didn’t get the message.

Again, I don’t claim to understand the success of Donald Trump, but it is naive at best to assume that all evangelical Christians are supporting him. Given the choice of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, I would vote for Donald Trump–not because I support him, but in the hopes that at least he would be less interwoven with the Washington establishment. I suspect that may be what his supporters are looking at.

Some Observations About Yesterday’s Election

Yesterday a number of states held primary elections. Political junkies were watching carefully for clues to the future. I have chosen three articles that I think best explain where we are. The first article was posted by Andrew Malcolm at Investor’s Business Daily. The second article was posted at The Hill. The third article is from The Federalist. Before I continue, I would like to add one caution–this is the silly season. Most of what you are going to hear in the next two weeks is not true. Be very careful what you believe.

Investor’s Business Daily points out:

The bottom line — or one of them — is that not much has changed. No one new dropped out, which helps Trump by keeping his opposition divided heading into the big Fox News debate in Detroit Thursday evening.

What we do know for sure now is that the GOP is split by deep fissures heading into peak primary season. Rubio and Cruz think the other should drop out.

Kasich, who’s been getting in the 4%-5% range, called on the others to quit and declared: “We have absolutely exceeded expectations.”

The governor is holding on to very little except the prayer that lightning will give him a victory back home in Ohio on March 15 and, who knows, maybe some VP consideration from Trump as a reward for denying Cruz and Rubio enough votes to catch the billionaire.

Trump had a good night, although he under-performed his polling heading into the biggest voting day of this cycle so far. That and Rubio’s late surge to second in Virginia could be a sign the Florida senator’s mocking attacks are having some impact.

Rubio declared Tuesday evening: “Donald Trump will never be the nominee of the Republican Party. We are not going to turn over the party of Lincoln and Reagan to a con man.” He called Trump “a creature of the media, the same media that’s going to tear him to shreds if he ever becomes our nominee.”

Does anyone remember Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment?

The article from The Hill points out that the precinct that includes Liberty University did not follow the lead of Jerry Falwell Jr., the school’s president, and vote for Donald Trump. The total’s from that precinct are as follows: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) took first with 44 percent support in Liberty’s precinct and 513 votes, followed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at 33 percent, Ben Carson at 14 percent and Trump at 8 percent.

The article at The Federalist made a number of observations. The first observation is that Trump underperformed:

He lost Texas to Cruz, as expected. But he lost it bigly — some 17 points. He also lost Oklahoma to Cruz. And then Cruz went ahead and won Alaska to boot. Minnesota went for Marco Rubio, his first state victory. Trump also underperformed in other states, such as Virginia. The Real Clear Politics average of polls headed into the contest was near 15 points. He won by 2.8% over Rubio. That meant Trump got 17 delegates to Rubio’s 16. His wins in Vermont and Arkansas were by similarly small margins.

The difference between the Republican and Democratic voter turnout is dramatic:

These Tuesday contests continued a pattern of record-breaking turnout for Republican primary voters and decreased turnout for Democratic voters (Colorado saw more Democratic voters than they had in 2008). Only Vermont didn’t have record-breaking turnout for its Republican primary, and it was still way up over the last contest. Many of the states whose contests were held on Super Tuesday hold open primaries, which means traditionally Democratic voters could be crossing over to vote for Trump or another candidate. No matter the cause, the excitement of both Trump voters and those seeking to stop him is palpable and contributing to the voter turnout.

One wonders if this is Democrats crossing over because they feel Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton or if it is enthusiastic Trump supporters. At this point I have no idea.

The article at The Federalist also states:

And while Cruz has previously shown much strength, many of the upcoming primaries are in states with demographics more like Minnesota than Texas or Oklahoma. Cruz and Rubio have shown strength in states with closed primaries, where Democrats can’t switch over to vote for Trump.

Trump is dominating and on path to the nomination. No one else has a good path, except if they all keep fighting to keep Trump from getting the delegates he needs. Expect much more discussion about whether people need to get out or stay in.

The question for those who would like to see a Republican president elected in November is simple, “Will the Democrats who are voting for Trump in the primary elections vote for him in November?” I honestly do not know the answer to that question, but I suggest that the people running the Republican presidential campaigns find that answer quickly.

 

 

Some Things To Consider

This is my statement on the current state of affairs in the Republican primary.

I don’t support Donald Trump. I understand the anger of Trump supporters, and I share that anger. I just don’t think Donald Trump is the solution to our current problems. Emotionally, I just don’t like the man. His arrogance and mannerisms are in the same league as Barack Obama’s, and I don’t want to watch another four years of someone who thinks I am too stupid to see what is happening around me. I also haven’t heard any concrete ideas from Donald Trump about how he wants to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. Those ideas may be there, but they are not at the forefront.

I don’t support Marco Rubio because I don’t trust his wisdom. He is too naive.

Breitbart.com reported on February 26th:

He’s often seen by some voters as not serious, as immature, as a little bit naive,” Conway said on Breitbart News Daily Friday. “You see him at that Gang of Eight podium — and you see Chuck Schumer… You see Chuck Schumer off to his left. You can almost see the saliva coming out of Chuck Schumer’s mouth, because he’s like, ‘We got this guy! This guy will never be president now. We’ve got him dead-to-rights. He is molding, leading, authoring, and shepherding through this amnesty bill that his base will never accept.’ Chuck Schumer knew that. And Marco Rubio didn’t.”

On February 25th Breitbart.com reported:

Ken Palinkas—who served as the President of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Council during the Gang of Eight fight and is now a local chapter president for USCIS officers—weighed in on the fight between America’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and Sen. Rubio.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Palinkas detailed the dangers a Rubio Administration would pose to national security and U.S. sovereignty—perhaps adding more trouble to an already embattled Rubio campaign.

“He’s the wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Palinkas told Breitbart—explaining that Rubio would “absolutely” represent President Obama’s third term on immigration.

As I said, the purpose of this article is to give readers some things to consider.

I do support Ted Cruz. Here are my reasons:

I think he is the smartest and most principled candidate running. Neither of these traits will ever win a popularity contest (and both traits tend to be disliked by those who do not have them), but I believe they are important traits in a presidential candidate.

Ted Cruz has already proven that he will defend the U.S. Constitution. He respects the Constitution and plans on upholding it. I am not sure Donald Trump understands that as President, he would represent one of three branches of government. Donald Trump does not do well as one of three.

Ted Cruz has already stood up for the values that are important to me. It is up to the voters to decide if those values are important to them. He has pledged to defund and investigate Planned Parenthood, stop the Iranian nuclear deal, end Common Core and defend the Second Amendment. That works for me.

If you are reading this, your vote counts as much as mine. I hope you will consider what I have said. Just vote.

 

Telling It Like It Is

The Hill reported Tuesday that Representative Justin Amash has endorsed Ted Cruz. Representative Amash previously supported Rand Paul.

The article reports Representative Amash’s comments published in an op-ed piece in the Independent Journal:

“It’s easy to withdraw from politics when the positions and priorities of the candidates do not precisely mirror our own,” Amash wrote in an op-ed published by the Independent Journal.

“But we owe it to our beliefs to find constitutional conservative political allies who not only respect our philosophy but also fight for our views to be heard,” he added.

“Ted is not a libertarian and doesn’t claim to be. But he is a principled defender of the Constitution, a brilliant strategist and debater who can defeat the Democratic nominee in the general election, and the only remaining candidate I trust to take on what he correctly calls the Washington Cartel.”

America needs to get back to the Constitution. Ted Cruz is the candidate who can take us there. If we do not return to the structure of the Constitution, our government will disintegrate into a group of crony capitalist elitists who have total disregard for the wishes and general welfare of the American people. We may already be there, but Ted Cruz would be the President with the best chance of leading us out.

Yesterday In South Carolina

Yesterday Donald Trump won the primary election in South Carolina. These are the numbers (from Townhall.com):

SouthCarolinaPrimaryElectionAfter the primary, Jeb Bush suspended his campaign, so there are essentially five candidates remaining–the top three are Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. So what can we conclude from this? The only Republican establishment candidate left is March Rubio. He is not the Republican establishment’s first choice, but he is the only remaining establishment candidate. The only true conservative in the race is Ted Cruz. We can expect to see more vicious attacks against him in the coming weeks both from the media and the Republican establishment.

This is the current delegate count in each party:

DelegateCountFebruary21*Party leaders who are free to support any candidate.

This is the beginning. If you truly want America to move in a positive direction in the future, I believe that Ted Cruz is your candidate. Be ready for the Democrats, the media, and the Republican establishment to go after Ted Cruz in a noticeable way. He is the candidate that is truly a threat to the status quo.

One Reason Washington Insiders Fear Ted Cruz

Senator Ted Cruz is not a Washington insider. Despite the fact that his career path has taken him to Washington, he is not part of the ‘in-crowd.’ He has shown numerous times that he has basic principles and that he is willing to take a stand on those principles whether anyone joins him or not. This sort of thinking is dangerous to the Washington establishment–of either party. That is one reason the attacks on him will increase as the primary elections continue.

Currently the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code is a tribute to the effectiveness of lobbyists. The tax code is used to encourage certain behavior and discourage other behavior. There are times when the tax code has been used to encourage marriage and families and times when it has been used to discourage marriage. Certain business with strong lobbyists have received tax breaks in the past. The tax code has been used to subsidize certain industries and behaviors. Crony capitalism has been a major force behind changes and writing of the tax code. It is time for that to end, and Ted Cruz has an interesting suggestion as to how to end it.

The following is taken from Ted Cruz’s webpage:

FlatTaxPlanWouldn’t it be nice to be able to pay your taxes on this simple form?

The website further reports:

PERSONAL INCOME TAX – SINGLE RATE: 10%

The Simple Flat Tax creates a simple, single-rate flat tax for individuals. The existing seven different rates of individual income tax will become one low rate: 10%.

  • A family of four will pay no taxes on their first $36,000 of income.
  • The plan exempts a large amount of initial income for low- and middle-income taxpayers, with a $10,000 standard deduction and $4,000 personal exemption. It also keeps the Child Tax Credit and expands and modernizes the Earned Income Tax Credit with greater anti-fraud and pro-marriage reforms.
  • The plan keeps the charitable giving deduction and features a home mortgage interest deduction, capped at principal value of $500,000.

BUSINESS FLAT TAX – SINGLE RATE: 16%

The corporate income tax along with the payroll tax are abolished, replaced by a 16% Business Flat Tax.

  • The current corporate tax code is riddled with years of accumulated loopholes and special favors, burdening U.S. businesses with the highest top tax rate among the advanced nations. This convoluted and anti-competitive structure will be replaced with a simple 16% tax on net business sales (gross sales minus expenses and capital expenditures).
  • The current payroll tax discourages work and job creation. The vast majority of Americans pay more in payroll tax than in income tax. The Simple Flat Tax will eliminate the payroll tax, boosting jobs and wages for working Americans, while guaranteeing funding for Social Security and Medicare.

UNIVERSAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (USA)

The Simple Flat Tax creates Universal Savings Accounts (USA) allowing savings of up to $25,000 per year in tax-deferred dollars.

Savers can withdraw the funds at any time for any reason – whether it be for college tuition, a down payment on a home, or their son or daughter’s wedding. This savings feature harmonizes with the tax elements of the Cruz Simple Flat Tax to move toward encouraging savings and investment – a recipe for economic growth and jobs.

There are other tax reform plans out there, but this plan looks possible and interesting. The plan also eliminates the death tax, the overseas profits tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the ObamaCare taxes.

I would just like to note that there is some serious double taxation in our current tax code–the death tax taxes money that taxes were paid on during the life of the person who died. Taxes paid on Social Security income are being paid on money that was already taxed when it was earned. The government needs to become considerable less greedy and allow Americans to keep more of the  money they earn.

 

 

Why Is The Pope Getting Involved In An American Presidential Race?

The headline today is that the Pope says that Donald Trump is ‘not a Christian.’ Big Whoop. Are Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz Christians? Is it possible to be a Christian and support abortion? Is it possible to be a Christian and demand that the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for contraception that includes abortion-inducing pills? Is it Christian to oppose Israel every step of the way and not defend them when they are attacked? Is it Christian to sit in Jeremiah Wright‘s church and hear racist shouting week after week? Who knows if Donald Trump is or is not a Christian? If he says he is, we need to take him at his word. We also need to evaluate his actions in light of what he says.

Sean Hannity posted what is essentially the essence of the story:

Specifically, the pontiff takes issue with Donald’s plan to build a border wall with Mexico. When asked about Trump, the Pope was quoted by The New York Times saying:

A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not getting involved in that. I say only this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.

Just for the record, this is a picture of the Vatican posted by a friend on Facebook:

PopeAndDonaldTrumpPeople who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

 

Why I Think The Republican Debate Is A Joke

I am watching the Republican debate. This is a collaboration between the Republican establishment and the media to make sure a non-establishment candidate does not win the Republican nomination. The media would like Hillary Clinton to win the presidency, but a lot of Americans are not necessarily following the media in this plan.

Note that Carly Fiorina is not on the stage and the John Kasich is. The only voting that has taken place in this election cycle has been in Iowa, where Carly Fiorina got more votes than John Kasich. Since that number represents actual votes, rather than inaccurate polls, I believe the people on the stage tonight were not chosen fairly. The establishment candidate is on the stage; the non-establishment candidate is not. Admittedly, the difference in the number of votes is small, but the fact remains that Carly Fiorina got more votes than John Kasich.

To add insult to injury, Breitbart.com has posted an article today about one of the moderators of the Republican debate. Martha Raddatz is married to a Harvard Law School classmate of Barack Obama. President Obama attended her wedding. President Obama appointed Julius Genachowski (Ms. Raddatz’s husband) to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Ms. Raddatz is one of the moderators of the Republican debate. Does anyone actually believe that she will be an unbiased moderator?

The Republican Party needs to choose the moderators for the Republican debates. These moderators need to be people who do not have strong ties to the Democratic Party. What is happening now on ABC is an attempt to use the Republican Presidential candidates to ensure a Democratic victory in the Presidential election in November.

What Happened In Iowa?

Yesterday the Des Moines Register posted an editorial about the Democratic Caucus in Iowa. The editorial reminds us that because the results of the Caucus were so close, it would be a good idea to do an audit of those results.

The editorial also reminds us:

Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.

The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party.

“Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match,” Batrice said Wednesday.

…So her path forward is clear: Work with all the campaigns to audit results. Break silly party tradition and release the raw vote totals. Provide a list of each precinct coin flip and its outcome, as well as other information sought by the Register. Be transparent.

And then call for a blue ribbon commission to study how to improve the caucuses, as the Republican Party of Iowa did after its own fiasco in 2012. Monday’s mess showed that it’s time for the Democrats to change, too.

The Iowa Caucus is really not the most important election on the primary circuit. However, it is the first election on the primary circuit. This is the first chance the voters have to actually voice their opinion. This is the chance the voters have to confirm or dispute what the pollsters are saying. It needs to be done right.

The editorial concludes:

Democrats should ask themselves: What do we want the Iowa caucus to be? How can we preserve its uniqueness while bringing more order? Does it become more like a straw poll or primary? How do we strike the balance between tradition and transparency?

We have time to consider these questions. First, however, we need answers to what happened Monday night. The future of the first-in-the-nation caucuses demands it.

Can We Please Move On To Other Things

Yesterday The Daily Caller reported that the Illinois Board of Elections has ruled that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” of America.

The article reports:

The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board stated, saying that Cruz “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth,” adding, “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”

That does make sense (although legal decisions do not always make sense). Ted Cruz did not have to take steps to become an American citizen because he already was one. I also suspect his draft card, social security number, etc. actually reflect places he was living at that time. I also suspect that at some point we will have access to his college records. Now, can we please put this issue to rest?

The person who challenged Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for President is also challenging Marco Rubio’s eligibility.

Surrendering Before The Battle Begins

The results of the Iowa Caucus are in. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are essentially tied, and three Republicans are running neck and neck. The obvious lesson from the caucus is that Iowa voters do not support the establishment candidates of either party. Bernie Sanders is not an establishment candidate and received about half of the Democratic votes. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are the non-establishment  Republican candidates, and together they received slightly more than half of the Republican votes. The message being sent by the voters seems rather obvious–we don’t want more of the same.

Today The Hill posted a story that might indicated that the Washington establishment may not have received the message the Iowa voters have sent.

The article reports:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), seeking to protect his majority in a tough cycle for Republicans, is leaning toward holding back several measures that have bipartisan support but are divisive in his conference.

McConnell, who will meet in the Oval Office on Tuesday with President Obama and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), is under pressure from some in his conference to take action this year on a sweeping Pacific Rim trade deal, criminal justice reform legislation and an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Others in McConnell’s conference are not keen to tackle any of those issues, however, and Senate GOP sources say McConnell is likely to take the safe route and not advance any bills that divide his ­conference.

“McConnell is smart to wait on issues that divide us until such time as we can achieve a consensus,” said a senior Republican aide. “There’s no question that some members want to turn to some things sooner than others. But McConnell’s duty is to do what’s best for the entire conference. Seems what’s best for the conference is to focus on the things that unite us.”

Essentially, Leader McConnell is saying that he isn’t going to lead. He doesn’t want to rock the boat. If the voters did not want to rock the vote, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz would not have been the top two winners in Iowa last night. Remember when the Senate refused to join Ted Cruz in fighting ObamaCare? There were convinced that if they did not cave, the world would end. Ted Cruz was told that he had ruined the Republican name. Somehow, I think that observation has been proven to be false.

The Republicans need a backbone. Given the chance, the voters will elect those candidates that exhibit a backbone. Those who do not have a backbone can expect to have their political fortunes changed at the first opportunity. Regardless of how you feel about him, Donald Trump has energized those voters who want the Washington establishment and the media that supports it to go away. A victory in the Republican primaries for either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump will be a step in that direction.

During the coming weeks, watch for a major attack on both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Those are the two candidates in the Republican party that are most threatening to the status quo that includes both the Washington establishment and the dominant media.

Also note that one of the leading contenders in the Democratic primary is an avowed Democratic Socialist. I am not even sure what that actually means. It is, however, an indication that Democrats are also unhappy with the status quo.

In Case You Have Forgotten What A Rational Political Discussion Looks Like

It has been a rough political season and will probably get rougher. My rule of thumb is, “Don’t listen to anything said within six weeks of an election–regardless of the type of election.” Why? Because that is the time the candidates are most likely to throw the ugliest mud–when the opposition has the shortest amount of time to respond. The hope is that the mud will stay with the voter and any good said about the candidate will be forgotten.

Just to remind you what rational political discourse looks like, I am posting the following YouTube video:

The Undercurrent In The Republican Primaries

The two main contenders in the Republican primary race are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. That is an interesting choice for the Republican base. The Republican base is basically conservative, but conservatives and many moderates are fed up with the way things are currently being done in Washington. It seems as if the difference between Republicans and Democrats is getting smaller all the time.

The Federalist posted an article yesterday explaining why the Washington elites hate Ted Cruz. Part of understanding the impact of the Washington elites dislike of Ted Cruz is understanding that the dislike is shared by the media. It is a good idea to keep this in mind when reading any news articles in the mainstream media about Ted Cruz.

The Federalist reports:

“[T]he cadre of Republican lobbyists, operatives and elected officials based in Washington are much more unnerved by Mr. Cruz, a go-it-alone, hard-right crusader who campaigns against the political establishment and could curtail their influence and access, building his own Republican machine to essentially replace them… “Trump won’t do long-lasting damage to the G.O.P. coalition,” said John Feehery, a Capitol Hill aide turned lobbyist. “Cruz will.”

So why will Cruz do long-lasting damage? The article explains:

Because the threat smart members of the Washington political elite truly believe in is not Ted Cruz, but the model he represents: that the path for an ambitious freshman politician to achieve leadership of the Republican Party in this day and age is not the normal give and take and deference to leaders and precedent and the way we do things around here, but instead to take a flamethrower to this system from day one. Regardless of whether Cruz wins a general election, his nomination could fundamentally transform the political incentives of the Senate and change the internal dynamics of the Senate Republican Conference. It shows that you can get a shot at the presidency not by playing along, but by playing your own game.

The potential of every two years having someone walk through the door in each new Senate class who thinks they could be the next potential Ted Cruz is an absolute nightmare for those who have thrived in their cushy lifestyles as stewards of the world’s most exclusive club. And that is why his nomination is unacceptable.

Regardless of what happens in the Republican primary, this is good news for voters who want their government to listen to them. We need to upend the Washington elite and give America back to the voters. The promises made by both parties that got them elected have proved to be worthless. It is time to throw everyone out and start something new. I don’t believe Donald Trump will do that. I believe Ted Cruz will.

The North Carolina Establishment Republicans Are Not Behaving Well

One of the best sources for information about the battle between the conservative and establishment Republicans in North Carolina is the Daily Haymaker. They have posted two stories recently about that battle (here and here). The latter story illustrates how the GOP establishment has carried its battle into South Carolina.

Rush Limbaugh explained this on his program today:

I have an incredible story here last night — and, by the way, just to give you a little bit of inside data, if you watched the debate last night, did you hear a lot of boos for Trump? (interruption) Did you wonder about that? (interruption) Well, you knew where it was coming? (interruption) Where was it coming from? (interruption) Where do you…? (interruption) No. (interruption) No. (interruption) It might have been the Bush camp, but I’ll tell you where the boo birds were coming from.  They were coming from North Carolina. 

The North Carolina GOP bused a bunch of people down there and their express purpose was to try to show that there is no massive support for Trump.  They wanted to do some damage.  They are grudgingly accepting Ted Cruz now.  But can you go back just maybe three, four weeks? How many of you remember the Republican establishment embracing Ted Cruz, promoting Ted Cruz, thinking Ted Cruz would be the solution? I mean, it didn’t happen, did it?  But it has worked out that way. 

The only way to stop this sort of garbage is for Americans to begin to do their own research about the candidates and get out and vote their consciences. As I have explained before, I am not a supporter of Donald Trump, but I hate the fact that the establishment Republicans want to run another moderate for President. The lessons of history show that moderate Republicans do not win presidential elections.

Caught Again

There have been a number of incidents in which the media has altered transcripts or tapes to give an impression that is not accurate. The latest example comes from an article in The Hill. PJ Media reported the story today.

The story deals with comments by presidential candidate Ted Cruz made about the recent shooting at a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado.

The article in The Hill included the following (which actually contradicts the headline):

“I think there’s been some vicious rhetoric on the left blaming those who are pro-life,” Cruz said according to audio from The Texas Tribune.

“It’s also been reported that he was registered as an independent and a woman and a transgendered leftist activist. If that’s what he is, I don’t think it’s fair to blame the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer,” Cruz continued.

The headline of the article in The Hill stated, “Cruz suggests Colorado shooter is a ‘transgendered leftist.’

That’s not exactly what he said. News readers, beware.

Some Thoughts On The Republican Debate

Late last night The Weekly Standard posted an article about the Republican Debate last night. The debate on CNBC was a tutorial on media bias. The questions were ridiculous, and the candidates called out the moderators on the silliness.

The article reports:

The three winners of the night were pretty obvious: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.

Rubio ended Jeb Bush’s campaign with the kind of body shot that buckles your knees. That’s on Bush, who never should have come after Rubio in that spot for a host of strategic and tactical reasons. But what should scare Hillary Clinton is how effortless Rubio is even with throwaway lines, like “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.” Most people have no idea how fearsome raw political talent can be. Clinton does know because she’s seen it up close. She sleeps next to it for a contractually-obligated 18 nights per year.

Cruz was tough and canny—no surprise there. He went the full-Gingrich in his assault on CNBC’s ridiculous moderators. He did a better job explaining Social Security reform than Chris Christie, even (which is no mean feat). And managed to look downright personable compared with John Harwood, whose incompetence was matched only by his unpleasantness. If you’re a conservative voter looking for someone who is going to fight for your values, Cruz must have looked awfully attractive.

Then there was Trump. Over the last few weeks, Trump has gotten better on the stump. Well, don’t look now, but he’s getting better at debates, too. Trump was reasonably disciplined. He kept his agro to a medium-high level. And his situational awareness is getting keener, too. Note how he backed John Kasich into such a bad corner on Lehman Brothers that he protested, “I was a banker, and I was proud of it!” When that’s your answer, you’ve lost the exchange. Even at a Republican debate.

And Trump had a hammer close: “Our country doesn’t win anymore. We used to win. We don’t anymore.” I remain convinced that this line (along with his hardliner on immigration) is the core of Trump’s appeal. But he didn’t just restate this theme in his closing argument. He used it to: (1) beat up CNBC; and (2) argue that his man-handling of these media twits is an example of what he’ll do as president. It was brilliant political theater.

I am not a Trump supporter, but I am supporter of the way he handles the press–he doesn’t back down. He’s not afraid of calling them out when they lie.

The article at The Weekly Standard regards the six candidates with an actual shot at winning the nomination as Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, and possibly Fiorina and Christie. I think they are on to something. I will say that whoever wins the nomination will have some really smart potential cabinet members to choose from.

Last Night’s Republican Debate

I am a football fan. One of the great things about football is that when you turn on a football game, you see a football game. It is played like a football game and reported like a football game. Last night I turned on the Republican debate. I am not exactly sure what I saw. I am a Hugh Hewitt fan. He was there, sitting in a special chair. I believe he had less talking time than most of the candidates. I guess that’s okay–the candidates were the ones having the debate, but why was he there? Also, why was the debate reported as if it were a football game. It’s not a football game–it’s supposed to be a serious discussion to help voters determine who they want to run for President. Or is it?

Now I am going into some tall grass. In August, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the establishment Republican’s strategy to make sure Jeb Bush was the party’s nominee. Basically, the strategy was to split the conservative vote in every early primary state so that Jeb Bush would win, even without a plurality of votes. If you look at the candidates, the theory cannot easily be dismissed. Marco Rubio will take Florida, Ted Cruz will take Texas, Lindsey Graham will take South Carolina, etc. Therefore, by the time you get to the more liberal Republican states, no conservative will have enough votes to challenge Jeb Bush.

In July I posted an article by Mark Jones which explained a new rule by the GOP:

Any state, other than the four exempt states already mentioned, that holds a Primary the first two weeks of the month will be forced to allocate those delegate on a proportional basis.  This means that if 5, or even 15, candidates are on the ballot, each candidate will receive a percentage of our delegates commensurate with the percentage of the vote they receive.This may sounds like a fair process on the surface, but as usual, there is more to the story.  The RNC’s penalty will mean that a number of very conservative states,with high delegate counts like Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina, that intend to hold early Primaries, will be forced to divide their delegates among multiple candidates.  In fact, 10 of 15 Southern states plan to hold their Primaries in this window. Conservative stalwarts like Colorado and Utah also plan to hold Primaries in this window.  It is highly unlikely any candidate will emerge from these conservative states with enough delegates to establish a significant lead or gain momentum in the race to be the Republican nominee before March 14.

The purpose of the debate (in the mind of the establishment GOP) is to divide the support among the conservative candidates. The media tends liberal, so they are going to play along so that the Republicans put forth a weak candidate. Unless the conservatives running for President agree among themselves on who gets out of the race and who remains in the race, we are going to have Jeb Bush as a candidate. I can assure you his candidacy will result in a Democrat President. The success of Donald Trump has thrown a bit of a wrench into the establishment plan, but I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans support a Trump presidency.

There are some good conservative Republican candidates. If nothing else, the assembled people on the state would make an amazing Presidential cabinet. The problem is finding a conservative leader. I am sure Jeb Bush is an intelligent and very nice man–I just don’t want to see him as the Republican candidate–I don’t think he can win.

Why We Need Conservative Republicans In Congress

After all the fuss this week about Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts, you would think it would be a given that Washington at least would stop funding Planned Parenthood. It would be nice if they would shut them down, but defunding them would be a really good  beginning. Since the Republican party platform is pro-life and the Republicans control the House and the Senate, defunding them should be fairly easy. If Republicans who believed in the Republican platform controlled the House and the Senate, it would be easy to defund Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, the Republican leaders in the House and Senate only believe in the Washington elite.

The Daily Signal posted the following yesterday:

What we saw in the Senate on Sunday is unprecedented in the annals of Senate history. It consisted of the majority leader and the minority leader denying members the ability to have votes on their amendments and indeed the ability even to have a roll-call vote. The denial of a second for a vote, which was aggressively whipped by the Republican majority, is an extraordinary measure designed to gag senators and enforce the will of the McConnell-Reid leadership team.

It saddens me as a Republican to see Republican leadership lead the effort to kill an amendment that would have prevented lifting sanctions on Iran unless and until Iran recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and unless and until Iran releases American hostages.

Make no mistake, granting a sufficient second for a roll call vote is done customarily in the Senate. Denying it is extraordinary, and it is done as a consequence of McConnell’s being afraid for his members to be on record on this issue.

I want my Senators on record on this issue. It is disgusting that under a Republican Senate and House the dismembering of babies and selling of baby parts will not only be allowed to continue–it will be subsidized.

Bias?

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the battle between Ted Cruz and The New York Times on the subject of Ted Cruz’s book, A Time for Truth. Ted Cruz has been on a book-selling tour drawing long lines of people buying signed copies of the book. According to Bookscan, the book is the third bestselling hardcover non-fiction book in the country. However, the book is nowhere to be found on The New York Times Top 20  Best Seller List. The New York Times claims, “In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.”

The article reports the response from Ted Cruz and his political campaign:

This statement is false, and the Times knows it.

There were no “strategic bulk purchases.” Cruz spent last week on a nation-wide book tour, signing copies of his book at multiple locations. Booksellers at each event had long lines—sometimes over 400 people per event.

Pictures from some of these signings may be found here: Arlington, TXKaty, TX, and Sioux City, IA.

“The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias called out. But their response—alleging ‘strategic bulk purchases’—is a blatant falsehood,” said Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler. “The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge, the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher Harper Collins.

“We call on the Times, release your so-called ‘evidence.’ Demonstrate that your charge isn’t simply a naked fabrication, designed to cover up your own partisan agenda. And, if you cannot do so, then issue a public apology to Senator Cruz and Harper Collins editor Adam Bellow for making false charges against them.”

The article at Power Line reports that right now Ted Cruz’s book ranks number 9 in sales among all the books at Amazon. I do question The New York Times’ judgement on this. It will be interesting to see if they continue to ignore the book or if they attempt to come up with evidence to back up their charges that the sales of the book are only in bulk–not individual sales.

 

 

Common Sense Takes A Vacation

Sometimes I think common sense has been on an extended vacation. Today Ted Cruz announced today that he would be seeking the nomination for President of the United States. I have not yet decided whom I will support, so please don’t draw any wild conclusions. However, the discussion that has followed has been comical.

Donald Trump has stated that Ted Cruz is not eligible because he is not an American citizen. I beg to differ.

GlennBeck.com posted the following today:

Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. His father, a popular figure in conservative circles, is a Cuban-born immigrant to the United States and his mother is a U.S. citizen.
“One of his parents is American. That’s all it takes. For the love of heaven, if illegal aliens can come to the America and give birth, and that birth child is a citizen, then so is Ted Cruz, for the love of heaven. Stop it!” Pat said.
The Immigration and Nationality Act states that a person is a citizen by birth if they are born to a parent with U.S. citizenship…

Let’s all relax and take a deep breath. There is a whole lot more known about Ted Cruz’s life than is known about the man who currently occupies the White House. There is no question as to where Ted Cruz was born, who his parents are, and the citizenship of one of those parents. Please return whatever you were doing. Even better, start to learn where all of the candidates stand on various issues. Let’s make a better choice this time.

The Text Of The Letter

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal posted the text of the open letter that 47 Senators signed about negotiations with Iran.

This is the text:

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK

Please read the letter carefully, and then draw your own conclusions as to whether the Senators were justified in sending it.

Something Good From Washington

Senator Ted Cruz released the following statement today:

“On November 5, 2009, a brutal terror attack was carried out at Fort Hood. The lives of 14 people were taken, one of them an unborn child, and 32 were injured. Today, we are grateful that the U.S. Army has chosen to bestow the Purple Heart, and its civilian counterpart, the Medal for the Defense of Freedom, on these victims,” said Sen. Cruz.
 
“This attack was a clear act of radical Islamic terrorism, conducted on American soil – the original decision to designate it ‘workplace violence’ and deny these honors was a betrayal of the sacrifice of each of the victims.  It is well past time for them to receive these awards and I thank the Secretary of the Army for reaching this determination. We can never undo the events of that day, but we can properly honor the courageous patriots who protect our nation and remain forever grateful for them.”
 
Last year, Sen. Cruz introduced an amendment to the 2015 National Defense Reauthorization Act (NDAA), which was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee and passed by Congress, to expand Purple Heart eligibility to victims of the Fort Hood terror attack.

Thank you, Senator Cruz, for working hard to make sure the victims of the attack were properly treated.