I begin by noting that when it comes to positions and policies among the Republicans, Ted Cruz is the closest to my beau ideal. I would want more than a dash of Rand Paul just to keep our domestic apparatchiks at bay, but for the most part, if Ted Cruz looked to become president, I would raise a celebratory glass after the results from Ohio came in.
In addition, I have thus far been impressed with how Cruz has been — as it appears to me — playing the long game. He got elected to the Senate promising to play hard ball, and that is exactly what he has consistently played. And I suspect that he has been playing the long game for a lot longer than it looks like he has been playing the long game. He is brilliant, and it appears to me that his brilliance is not simply of the policy wonk genre. Strategy appears to be part of the package.
I say this knowing that there are a number of the candidates that I would still be willing to vote for, and it might come to that. It depends on who is still standing in a few months, and there is a lot of terrain between now and then. Some candidates bow out after a slow bleed of money, like Perry, and some do it 48 hours after their fireball gaffe, like whoever draws that short straw.
Now I know there are some ideological purists who want to know what possible defense I could offer for voting for any establishment type, someone like Bush or Walker. I don’t know . . . self-defense, perhaps? We can talk about that later.
But my point here is not to be a member of any cheer-leading squad, but to analyze the game a bit. My role here is not to be Tiffany with the cute midriff but rather to be John Maddon with no cute midriff at all.
First, the Trump thing has everyone off balance, but I think it really is being misread. I think everyone has it right that Trump represents the mad-as-hell portion of the electorate. Then right after Trump is Carson, with the mad-as-heck contingent. But it is commonplace to say that this cohort occupies the hard right-wing of the party, by definition, but I don’t think this is true. The Trump thing has not really hurt the hard right candidate (Cruz) at all.
But the person most affected by Trump appears to be Bush, and probably Walker after that. Trump and his mad-as-hell shtick has actually drained support out of the moderate middle. I think more people are disgusted with the status quo than just the doctrinaire true believers on the edges. The same thing is going on over on the left, with the Bernie Sanders FeeNom. That reminds me. Think about a Trump v. Sanders race and try not to get the giggles and nausea simultaneously. Certainly, the entertainment values would be high — a Commie/Blowhard match-up would be a race for the ages. But, despite jangled nerve projections, I don’t think that is going to happen.
A quick word on the polls, a practice which is central to modern analyses of political races. I believe that polls are far more scientifically unreliable than they are generally made out to be, and think that wild inductions are not the safest way to go. Talking to 200 people and deciding what 200 million are thinking is . . . risky.
But because the candidates believe in and make decisions based on them, because participation in debates is based on them, because donors believe in them, and because the public assigns mojo accordingly, they are a factor to be taken into account. The same thing could be happening with haruspicy, and one need not be a entrails-believer to have to take it into account if observing political campaigns in a nation of entrails-believers.
That said, Cruz has not been hurt by Trump in the polls at all. He has been steadily moving up in the pack. Given that Trump has completely discombobulated the race, has he done so in a way that is intuitive or counter-intuitive? I think the latter.
Also keep in mind that money is political oxygen. The Republican field will be dramatically culled in the months to come — because a number of them simply will no longer have the money. That is what drove Perry from the race, not arguments, refutations, etc. The same thing is likely to happen to Gilmore, Jindal, Graham, et al. So who has the money in hand to still be in it months from now? Well, Trump does, and Bush sure does. Carson probably does. But in the second tier, I believe that Cruz does
All this said, here are few criticisms of Cruz. First, in television interviews he can come off (to me at least) as simultaneously unctuous and nasally. His television persona needs work, I think. But I would say the same kind of thing about the reedy voice of Ron Paul, a person I would tend to dismiss as a charisma hole. But he was a charisma hole who could fill up venues with wildly cheering college students, so there’s that problem for my theory. In other words, I respect Cruz but don’t “get” his charisma — but judging from the effects, I do believe he has it. That said, the more people see him in the way the poster above portrayed him, the better it will be for him. That poster leans against the unctuous vibe.
A second thing has been the way he has been deliberately courting Trump’s supporters. I believe that Cruz believes that Trump is going to go up like a rocket and come down like a stick. And I believe that he is correct in this. Trump is exploiting the fact that he knows how to fill a room with his personality, and he can do this easily over against “the mob.” He stands out and the mob doesn’t stand out. But when the mob is no longer a mob, and there are just a handful of individuals still standing, and Trump has to defend his wildly erratic statements — like his tweet just last year defending abortion-on-demand at 7, 8, or 9 months — against candidates with a far more consistent record than he has, it will not fare so well with him. An accurate motto for a Trump presidential campaign would have to be “Big Government, Big Hair, Big Mouth.”
So Cruz has been carefully cultivating his relationship with Trump supporters. I don’t fault him for that part, and think it is part of his shrewdness. The problem is when he defends not attacking Trump on the basis of his policy of “not attacking Republicans” — the reason so many of us like him is that he has been faithfully attacking Republicans from the first moment he got into politics. This particular answer doesn’t pass the laugh test, and I would encourage him to modify it. I think he ought to start saying that he believes the establishment Republicans who are burrowed into the Washington woodwork need a lot more criticism than they get, and that disenfranchised Republicans ought to be given space to articulate their grievances, however problematic we might find some expressions of those outsider grievances to be. That would work, and that is what I think is actually happening.
And yes, I noticed that I have identified members of the moderate middle, who have consistently succeeded in nominating one loser after another, as feeling like outsiders. That is part of what makes this a season of delicious ironies.
Honest question: According to polling data, Trump is a favorite among evangelical Christians. Why? As Doug points out, he was pro-abortion not that long ago, and he says that clerk in Kentucky ought to issue same-sex marriage licenses. He’s fairly blatantly irreligious. So why does he appeal to evangelicals?
Mmm, maybe not. http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/14/evangelicals-dont-love-trump/
I speak as a journalist of 25 years — they are TEH WORST at reading and interpreting stuff like polls. It caused me no end of grief when I was in the newspaper business.
No; you were in TEH newspaper business! ;o)
But so you know, I get your point, and even a small sliver of support from evangelicals is baffling.
Well, I am one evangelical Christian who supports Donald Trump. Several reasons: Federal remedies to shut down baby killing are a waste of time. Electing Republican presidents so they can appoint more Roberts, Souters, Kennedy’s is a waste of time and effort. Nobody, except maybe a Ron Paul would have really appointed a true jurist, say an Andrew Napolitano, to the Supreme Court. None of the current crop of Presidential candidates will do this. The remedy for abortion resides in nullification/ local magistrate/ State level resistance and civil disobedience. Same for homo mirage. Foreign policy – Cruz is right in… Read more »
I’d like to cram those last sentences of yours onto a bumper sticker.
The fact that you think Trump is the only one talking your points on any of these issues showed that you haven’t looked into other candidates positions; eg Santouram on immigration.
Santorum’s better than some, but he hasn’t said a word about deportation.
Santorum is unelectable in the gerneral.
And Trump, big-government buffoon, ought to be. The point is, Santorum’s saying it, so Trump’s not “the only one.”
The fact that someone with as little popular support as Santorum is the best example that can be put forth, to me, seems to be a point in the favor of Trump supporters. And the rest of the excellent upthread comment remains unaddressed: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-season-of-delicious-ironies.html#comment-2253274168 So Santorum has come out strong against immigration, as well. Fine. Santorum’s a great guy, but in this massive GOP field, he’s a total lightweight. So he was unable to do a single solitary thing about it. OTOH, Trump could drop out of the race today, and he’d have done more for the cause of national… Read more »
Let me get this straight: ‘resistance’ and ‘civil disobedience’ by the apex sovereigns over the U.S. Constitution — We The People, who created, defined, and circumscribed the federal servant, are to ‘resist’ our lawless servants? Or civilly ‘disobey’ the lawless servants? Read my post above, or my book FEAR The People*. We The People do not know basal civics; attempting to fill this lacuna with theology isn’t going to hack it; nor is politics ever going to replace law enforcement. The U.S. Constitution is far more adequate to our present mess than most Christian leaders and authors apparently realize. There… Read more »
Well, I’d say that if your assertion is correct about Trump being supported by evangelicals, it’s mostly because the average American evangelical is as squishy in the head as he is in the middle.
Eric…..*sigh* it’s because we’re dumb.
Forgive me, but, as an evangelical Christian, I’m waiting patiently for the others to wake up to the reality of what Trump’s candidacy represents. Only a scant handful have good reasons for opposing him–the rest, including the commenters here, are repeating what’s being said in the mainstream media. I don’t want to say you’re dumb, but I will say you’re asleep.
Good morning Justin, There was not a small amount of facetiousness in my comment. But don’t worry, you don’t have to call me dumb since I already included myself in the that group. I do prefer to think that it a kind of eyes wide open stupidity though rather than the asleep type. If repentance as a nation is turning 180deg and humbly worshipping God, then Trump seems to me to be a collective stomp on the gas pedal with a couple sharp jerks on the wheel. We may find ourselves facing the right direction at some point, but it… Read more »
I see exactly what you mean, and the metaphor is apt. But the arrival of Trump, from my perspective, seems more like the joke about the man praying and waiting on his shed during a rising flood, rejecting several attempts at rescue in the name of waiting on God; and when he gets to heaven and asks why his faith wasn’t rewarded with rescue, God tells him, “Look, I sent you a boat, I sent you a….” Polling data also indicates that Trump is very popular with the working class and less so with the college educated. Now, anytime someone… Read more »
But I don’t wonder at all to what degree pride, as in blatant egoism, drives Trump. Now maybe the same could be said of most of the rest, the thing is, I prefer decorum, even when I do know what is underneath. Lack thereof indicates a crude lack of regard for anyone else at all. That, and all the other things that have been said against Trump.
The other question you should ask is: To what degree does a kind of pride motivate support for Trump?
Well, that’s right; even to run for president demands a level of egotism that most human beings lack. The funniest one is Ben Carson, the quiet, mild-mannered neurosurgeon who has written four books…about himself, his near-miraculous powers with a scalpel, and with his face on every book cover. Humble man, that one.
Still, based on his track record (well publicised), Trump would be the most dangerous autocrat to sit in the White House since the Roosevelts. If he won, which he will not.
LOL at Ben Carson, I didn’t know he wrote four books about himself. Didn’t President Obama stop himself at two?
Whoops…missed his latest two, again featuring Ben’s favorite idol on the cover. I do not seek to take a thing (professionally) from a gifted neurosurgeon; but in reading three of his books, I saw articulated the approximate policy positions of Jimmy Carter. Carson is a cipher when it comes to his ability to be president; his positions are occasionally redolent of Coolidge. But on too many issues (Marxist programs, gun control) he is another Carter. And anyone who can write six books about himself, with his image on the cover…well, even The Donald hasn’t gone that far. What is it… Read more »
I suppose nationalism could be considered a form of pride, but I don’t see that as a vice.
Distinguo. There is good nationalism (temporally I’m a proud Texan; eternally I’m a deeply thankful citizen of the Kingdom of God) and bad (any ‘nationalism’ that raises Washington DC above our very limited grant of power in the U.S. Constitution).
Vice is vice; crime is crime, and the Constitution is LAW.
I do – at least when it’s the kind of “nationalism” on display in certain comments made in this forum.
We have to find a way for me to buy you a beer. (I can’t stand the stuff but I’ll buy you one anyway) . . . Dying of curiosity here . . . given that you object to Wickert being overbroad and that the federales should not have general police (poli sci meaning) powers, how in the world can you STILL be a Democrat? My feeble little artificial horizon just locked up on me. Makes NO sense to me at all. Must be a heck of story in there somewhere ’cause I’m not seein’ it!
Folks are fed up with Beltway type RINOs. They did not elect Republicans to go to Congress to partner with Obama and his ilk and yet that’s exactly what they’ve done with the exception of men like Sen. Cruz who has done exactly the sort of thing he was elected to do. So, the average conservative voter is supporting Trump because they’re fed up with RINOs and thumbing their nose at them. Cruz is wise to support Trump at this point in the story, because when he drops out (he will – trust me) those supporters of Trump will then… Read more »
Any concern about Cruz’s Zionism?
No, because he has absolutely no chance of winning a general election. He is one of my senators; erudite, a true debate champ, and a showman. Egotistical as the day is long. Married to a career investment banker (who quit just recently). Thin-skinned. Far too cerebral in his approach; or to use a neologism mentioned in ‘Rules for Reformers’, Cruz is into ‘cool-shaming’, big time. Like Sarah Palin with her (very calculated) ‘dumb’ pitches: Trump gets Bubba. Cruz doesn’t (rather, he dares not).
This trump-mania makes absolutely no sense to me. How can anyone think this man has a shred of integrity. In my opinion, he is the president we deserve, but I hope for something a little better.
On the plus side, I think Trump has run interference for those on the right who would be getting the left-wing media’s scorn constantly if Trump werent around. Primarily in this group is Cruz. I think the media would be declaring war on him if it werent for the whole Trump thing. But I still dont get it.
Sticking with your Madden metaphor, its fourth down, late in the game, and you’re down big time. Cruz is a hand off up the middle and Trump is a Hail Mary pass. This is likely the last election where Republican voters can continue to studiously avoid identity politics before it runs them down like a truck. Cruz is just another shill for the donor class. This was evident went out of his way to very publicly insult Middle Eastern Christians and then go immediately seeking a handout from Sheldon Adelson. Christians are about to permanently lose on all their pet… Read more »
Just a reminder that Reagan got 56% of the white vote in 1984 and won and Romney got 59% of the white vote in 2012 and lost. Trump is polling highest among blacks which stands to reason since he is the candidate most likely to protect their jobs. He’s also polling highest among hispanics. You guys might not like big man blowhard politics but like Joe Dirt said, “Its not what you like, its the consuuumer.”
Do the people with whom Trump is popular actually vote though?
Excellent metaphor. Trump can break cultural Marxism’s increasing hold over the thoughts and even language of the under-30 crowd like no one else can, and he appears to be serious about ceasing the importation of votes that hammer the lower and middle class economically, and make things like overturning Roe v. Wade impossible. My only question is, why aren’t more evangelicals for him?
If a foreigner may be permitted to add to the American football analogies to comment on American politics (a fraught proposition):
Voting Trump is playing Prevent defence. Voting Cruz is sending the entire secondary in on the blitz. As an American friend once said, the only thing the Prevent defence prevents is victory for the team using it.
Cruz cannot win a general election in this generation; not by a long shot.
If it’s anything like his campaign, a Trump presidency would lead to the death of political correctness. The Media’s hemming and hawing would only last a year or two into his administration before the country would grow weary of the complaining and accept the new atmosphere of frank discussion of issues. Once the air is cleared of political correctness real solutions to our problems can finally be entered into the political discussion. This alone is reason enough for me to support Trump, despite his not being a conservative.
Precisely. We cannot afford to push for the same issues and same type of candidate. Would I prefer Ted Cruz or Rand Paul based on policy positions alone? Yes, very much so. But that’s kicking the can down the road. Trump can loosen cultural Marxism and billionaire elite’s chokehold on this country, can and from what I can tell, no one else can.
Never trust a billionaire Marxist who hates Marxists and billionaires.
He’s not a Marxist (unbecoming of a Christian to use inaccurate labels IMO), I mean, come on, the dude is actually an international symbol of capitalist success. Nor does he hate billionaires. Ego he has, but hate? No, he’s just telling the truth about what’s going on. Billionaires are in control of our immigration and trade policy, both of which as currently structured act as a drain on the wealth and wages of the lower and middle classes. Export labor when possible by setting up shop overseas, import labor in industries where that’s not possible, and encourage debt-driven consumerism and… Read more »
If you have children, you don’t want a self-absorbed, historically illiterate, pugilist crackpot as commander in chief of the marauding behemoth U.S. military industry.
Trump is not a true conservative in that a conservative promises a dignified management of decline, an orderly decommissioning and dismantling of American society. “Make America great again” is reactionary. Trump’s self confidence and bluster is offensive. A true conservative shrinks when he speaks in the knowledge that there is no objective truth, only consensus. Behind the conservative’s every word is an apology for existing. He stands athwart history saying “Lets not be too hasty”. Enough with conservatives, they’re cowards and liars.
‘Conservative’ is a hackneyed catch-all, Barnabas. The Loyalists used the adjective; so did the Federalists, the Whigs and then the GOP. All of those cohorts were of precisely Trump’s kind: married to Mammon, and in bed with the crown.
Constitutionalist is a better word, I think. Trump is definitely not one of those.
From Trump’s immigration policy paper: “A nation without borders is not a nation. A nation without laws is not a nation. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.” Any candidate that can’t sign off on that and mean it has no business running for anything. Trump certainly has his faults but as far as I’m concerned he’s the only one in the race.
This is my take on Trump, from the last page of my new book, after 180 pages describing and laying out a full-spectrum action plan to restore rule of law (limited government, liberty)… “To my rule that presidents can only make things worse, I offer today’s politics as Exhibit A. “Billionaire real estate developer Donald Trump has entered the GOP race for 2016 and his message is resonating with millions of Americans. While this might make sense because Trump owes no allegiance to D.C. organized crime, Trump is a shameless showman whose ignorance of basic history and civics beggars description;… Read more »
The dude is an “international symbol of capitalist success” only because people don’t realize that massive government subsidy of debt capitalism.
I agree that Marxist isn’t a good label, but he’s not a capitalist by any definition more sophisticated than “he’s made a lot of money in commerce.” But so did the captains of mercantilism.
You can’t be a real capitalist if you support the forced transfer of family property for the sole purpose of further enriching already rich people, provided the government gets a big enough cut.
Immigration is the only political issue that matters this season. The USA’s political system was designed for people of northwestern European ancestry and it’s implausible to expect it to continue to work when the electorate is not overwhelmingly composed of people who share that background and culture. Republicans like to talk about principles like “free enterprise”, “limited government”, and “rule of law” — but look at how much these are valued in the countries these people are coming from. Beating Trump would be easy — a candidate who can convincingly move to the right of Trump on immigration would take… Read more »
Oh, ashv, don’t you know that America is a propositional nation and so is every European country? When America is just another corrupt Latin banana republic and Europe is North North Africa what will matter is the constitution or something. Christians for the past 2000 years didn’t commit cultural suicide because they were kinist. You don’t want to be kinist do you? People will think you’re mean, what kind of witness is that? We ought to be ashamed that it took atheist cultural Marxists to show us what it really means to be a Christian.
If Charles Spurgeon never advocated evacuating the population of Africa to England to spare them the hardships of the Boer War it was only because he was a racist. God didn’t chose to reveal his will regarding international altruism to men who spent their days in fasting, prayer, and study of the word. God has chosen to reveal his will on these matter to us now and through sentimental facebook posts. He works in mysterious ways.
The world is changing at a break neck pace and vague Christian conservatism has proven to be completely inadequate to guide the culture of those in the Church much less the country at large. American Christians appear to be completely adrift theologically and philosophically. Church leaders have been willing to give a vaguely Christian spin on whatever passes for thought in the larger culture. Being against abortion and gay marriage is a poor excuse for a world view. With that being said, I don’t know that it makes any sense for Christians to be debating the 2016 election. Under these… Read more »
Sodomy and abortion are the big ‘E’ on the eye chart, to use Pastor Wilson’s phrase. Being able to recognize those evils is good — but we need to recognize the socio-political roots of our current infamy go deep. We don’t need to look back 50 years for the better course — more like 350.
“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserved anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservaism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon… Read more »
Re Trump and abortion. The way to reduce abortions and protect the lives of the unborn is to criminalize it at the state level and ignore the Supreme Court’s tyranny. The fact no one in the pro-life movement is seriously proposing a strategy of delegitimizing Roe v. Wade or going around federal judges shows how unserious the movement is in stopping the slaughter of millions of babies. Picketing a PP “clinic” may fill you with righteous indignation, but it hardly does any good. Yet all the current crop of pro-life non-Trump candidates are essentially doing is picketing an abortion clinic.… Read more »
Exactly. The Presidency is essentially a ceremonial position, which is why discussions of policy minutiae misses the point
What is the significance for you in using the confederate flag as an avatar? Not trolling for a fight, but it is a rather provocative symbol with more than a bit of questionable historical baggage.
Opposition to America and Americanism — and loyalty to family, nation, and church.
Ah. What nationality are you?
Virginian and Scotch-Irish, also known as “Unreconstructed Southerner”.
I see. Thank you for putting a fine point on that; I didn’t want to make any assumptions. For my part, I support free speech and your right to hold to an idea, or appropriate a symbol of the enslavement of others without fear of reprisal- other than utter ridicule. A most American ideal.
Thomas Paine said, ‘Lead, follow. or get out of the way.’ You don’t seem to be a follower, and you are definitely not a leader. So, thank you for clarifying your spot in the queue.
That’s some high-browed smack-talk right there…wouldn’t it have just been simpler to call him an idiot that needs to get lost so the grown-ups can make the decisions?
Perhaps that would have sounded too crass and kept you from typing it…
The funny part is that he takes Thomas Paine seriously.
You clearly were trolling for a fight.
Here is the tactical and strategic plan to deal with abortion, sexual perverts seeking the label ‘marriage’, Obamacare, sharia law, and anything else that a majority of Americans knows is anathema. One must first understand that running straight at a single issue, is a non-starter. We cannot restore American rule of law by attempting rear-guard actions against every lawless incursion or arrogation. There are several hundred thousand law firms, agencies, and single-purpose lobbying organizations working the D.C. city-state. It is truly a city-state; an autonomous, supremely powerful entity unto itself, but feeding countless powerful industries, individuals and corporations — which… Read more »
You have done a good job explaining the complexity and intransigence of the system. I think it is a very optimistic notion that a minority or even a slim majority could change such a system. What do you think of this alternative? If you want a society without abortion or gay marriage start one today. Instead of expending all your resources trying vainly to uproot a corrupt system start a new system.
If you prefer your own ghetto, do that. I prefer restoring rule of law as it is written.
I can have rule of law in my ghetto today. Your great grandchildren will never see the American rule of law restored as written.
D’accord. But I have been self-employed for 35 years; have been a law-abiding Nontaxpayer for 18 years; have a second generation of homeschoolers now in our grandchildren; am part of a deeply-committed house church (eight families) who abide together yet with our separate vocations and businesses, in fullness of joy seven days a week; I do not see a police cruiser or hear a siren but perhaps once a month; we eat well, drink well, and play hard under the Texas Hill Country skies. I am content in my mission to the Americans, and in living a full life among… Read more »
So you rule over a nucleus of order. You have a sphere of true sovereignty as opposed to “popular sovereignty”. What are the proper functions of a state? What if your nucleus of order, your sphere of true sovereignty was linked with mine and a thousand others? Could some of the proper functions of the state be assumed by such a community? I know that is a huge lowering of expectations from enforcing your will on 300 million people but its a more realistic goal. Enforcing your concept of law on 300 million people would take a great deal of… Read more »
I think the problem here is that you are missing the nature of the problem entirely. The Constitution is LAW, and Washington D.C. is a grizzled, experienced organized crime operation. I mentioned DiLorenzo’s eponymous book, and those of Judge Napolitano. You suggest that running from organized crime to start an alternative ‘system’, while allowing the lawless to have the house, is a viable option. I disagree, believing that the very absence of courage and conviction displayed by the body of Christ these past five generations, has only emboldened outlaws. Why don’t you email me at [email protected] and let me send… Read more »
In a blog article on our AmericaAgain.net site yesterday, I concluded… “According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are over 170 million adult Christians in America. If the term ‘Christian’ means anything, it is that we do not sit by as monsters crush infants to death; so how can millions of Americans express shock when 3,000 adults died on 9/11/2001 but look the other way for 40 years as an equal number of Americans are killed each DAY in America’s abortuaries? “How long will God have mercy on us? Will we repent and turn now, or will our children live… Read more »
I’m afraid I don’t follow your euphemisms here, “do the work” “kick down gates” “heavy lifting”. What does any of that mean? If voting is not the extent of our duty what is? Also, popular sovereignty is not even close to a biblical concept so I’m afraid you are mixing spheres of thought here.
Well the law is the law until it isn’t any more. Kelly Hagger will be happy to school you that its law as it is currently interpreted and enforced that matters. It might gall me but he’s absolutely right. Colonials didn’t change the political system with a superior understanding of Locke or superior Christian theology. They did it with muskets and cannons. If you are a three star general you might make a high-stakes play at “reforming” the system. Otherwise, what you’re really doing is begging the system to reform itself.
Nonsense. I’ve offered you my latest book, free of charge. You want a 2 ounce energy drink and keep on the present track, Barbarians at the helm. Kelly Hagger [sic] has already expressed his unwillingness to read my latest book because it might create a crisis of conscience for a former military employee. I get it; but that doesn’t improve his standing in the discussion. Your construction of a *tertium non datur* would have been silly to the framers at the Philadelphia Convention. No, armed revolt or so-called ‘civil disobedience’ are NOT the only ways forward; in fact, they are… Read more »
That picture of Cruz looks like a young Bill Murray.
If only he were…
The terms “John Maddon”, “cute” and “midriff” should always be separated by paragraphs at least, if not pages. Please remind me of an annoying song, in a effort to bump that mental image out of my head.
Its been what? Maybe three weeks since I said on this blog that if a Mexican has a moral right to enter my country then there was no moral foundation to the nation state. Now Europe is imploding. In light of this there is no other political issue worth talking about.
I would agree with this for the most part. Abortion means dead babies, but so does immigration. How many little children will die if there is ethnic violence in the West? How many more will starve in Africa if aid is cut off?
Even if there is no outright warfare, the welfare state cannot sustain mass immigration. The supply chains that feed American cities are extremely fragile. It wouldn’t take much for there to be massive ‘demographic turnover.’
Pope Blames Refugee Crisis on ‘God of Money,’ ‘Socio-Economic System That Is Bad, Unjust’ “This is the tip of the iceberg. We see these refugees, these poor people who are escaping from war, escaping from hunger, but that’s the tip of the iceberg. But underlying that is the cause, and the cause is a socio-economic system that is bad, unjust, because within an economic system, within everything, within the world, speaking of the ecological problem, within the socio-economic society, in politics, the person always has to be the center. And today’s dominant economic system has removed the person from the… Read more »
The Nine Inch Nails already covered this in their song “Head Like a Hole”. I’m not sure what might distinguish their respective remedies (Pope and Trent Reznor)… God money I’ll do anything for you. God money just tell me what you want me to. God money nail me up against the wall. God money don’t want everything he wants it all. [Bridge:] no you can’t take it no you can’t take it no you can’t take that away from me no you can’t take it no you can’t take it no you can’t take that away from me head like… Read more »
I think I’m on safe grounds here to observe that it’s pretty hard to be at or past your teenage years, be a Christian, and not know about “God and Mammon” and/or “The love of money is the root of all evil” (although I have heard good folks leave off the “love of” prefix). Pink Floyd did “Money” on the prism/rainbow “Dark Side of the Moon” album? 1972? 73? Ringing cash register in the background? “Git ur hands off my stack?” But the real Jew gassers of 1944-45 weren’t trying to get a bump in their mutual find portfolios, nor… Read more »
Agreed on all counts.
I don’t give a frog’s quivering thigh for any of that lot. Beginning with John Fremont, the ‘new’ Republican party *ab initio* has been the party of the plutocrat lever-pullers behind the scenes. I don’t disagree with you, Doug, about Trump. He will implode, or the GOP machine will ‘implode’ him a bit further down the line (for which reason Ted Cruz hasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell). The Donald is everything that sound-minded citizens despise in politicians — except a politician. (Which would change immediately upon his taking office, they fail to realize). Trump is the male edition of… Read more »
I wouldn’t mind seeing you on the next presidential debate stage, if only to hear you say, “I don’t give a frog’s quivering thigh for any of that lot.”
Agreed. I would also love to hear someone–ANYONE–make his Presidential platform all about what he, Congress, and the judiciary are NOT going to do…because, Constitution!
I have always thought that Calvin Coolidge was the last “Constitutional” President, which is why we was chided as “Silent Cal” and why he really stands out as an anomaly in the line of Presidents between Lincoln and Obama. What are your thoughts on the “Coolidge doctrine,” if I may coin that phrase?
In my view, Coolidge was the best president after the reign of the Butcher of Illinois. He actually had what all presidents *claim* to have- respect for the Constitution – and his administration illustrated it. His support for the rather silly Kellogg-Briand Pact (attempting to ‘outlaw’ war) was typical of his dim view of foreign wars of plunder, if a bit puerile in its idealism.
Trump wanted the government to take a widow’s house away from her (Vera Coking) and give it to his casino to enlarge the parking lot? Fine: he can make reversal of Kelo a litmus test for judicial appointments, give $5 million to the Institute for Justice, and say he was wrong, he’s sorry, and he’ll do the opposite from now on. There is grace: he can be forgiven when he repents. (Give most of his fortune to his first wife, a tad to his second, and move into the Salvation Army with his 3rd?) Jon Swerens, in the 2nd comment… Read more »
In the wake of Kelo, about two dozen states passed laws or amended their state constitutions to ban New London-type land grabs. Mississippi was the most recent state to do so; 2013 or so.
Trump is a cipher, but the point is, no president will save us.
Read the Constitution; presidents are to be figureheads and administrators of Congress’ laws. Because it answers to the People most directly, we grant Congress the power of the purse and sword – but it must *actually answer to the People*.
D.C. organized crime has operated for at least five generations. Conservatives believe that Obama is the beginning of American Marxism, but the Obamas actually mark the embarrassing, fitting *end* of the long hijacking that began with Lincoln.
I have long thought that our nation’s ills, speaking strictly from a socio-political POV, could be tied inexorably to our departure from the Constitution.
But naturally, as a Reformed Christian, I also know with even more assurance that our ills are tied to our departure from the Word of God.
Christ and the Constitution forged this civilization, yes.
One thing I’m fairly confident of is that enough conservatives and libertarians will fail to find a perfect candidate and thus will stay home on election day next year guaranteeing another Democrat victory. They will have lofty reasons for doing so. At least their reasons will seem lofty to them. Some conservatives and libertarians don’t play well with others. They haven’t learned that politics is about trying to get a consensus. As a result, they and our country will lose.
That’s how Bush got elected in 2000; lots of people voted for Nader because Gore wasn’t left enough for them. The result is they got 8 years of W. Glad to see my side isn’t the only one that does stupid things.
Experience has shown me, that all “party groups are subject to the same failing.
Thou art most certainly not alone.
Yet, the fact remains: Ted Cruz in not a natural born US citizen, as required by the US Constitution. Nor is Bobby Jindal nor Marco Rubio … nor is Barack Obama
Please. And John McCain was born in the Canal Zone.
Pastor Doug – I suggest you delete llion’s post.
some fool who does not wish the truth to be known: “Please. And John McCain was born in the Canal Zone.” Which has exactly nothing to do with anything. John McCain could have been born on Mars, and he’d still be a natural born US citizen. Ted Cruz (or Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio or Barack Obama) could have been born in the Well of the US Senate, and he’d still not be a natural born US citizen. like I said: some fool who does not wish the truth to be known: “Pastor Doug – I suggest you delete llion’s… Read more »
Let me guess — the 14th Amendment is illigitimate and should be ignored?
K2, Taking a chance here, might affend someone, but (a) “don’t feed the trolls?” (b) that 1898 case EDIT https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html concerns the child (grown at the time of his detention) of “green card”-ish legal resident aliens. If memory serves, the parents had never so much as ever even applied for naturalization. They’re described as “subjects of the emperor of China.” By contrast, the “birthright citizenship” fight some want to start today is over the children of illegal aliens, not green carders or college kids here on a long visa. 5th Cir “peeping tom/college landlord/diversity of citizenship” case. Hubby was a… Read more »
“OTOH, maybe I’ll just a fool with a [EDIT] (sometimes) bad memory who has never studied the actual constitution itself.”
Are statements like this helpful?
Appeals to formal study, authority, credentials, and qualifications, and degrees do come across as a bit pompous and dismissive. This seems to be a consistent pattern of yours as of late. If people are so misguided in their understanding of legal issues, it should be fairly simple to point it out without all the dismissive rhetoric. Just a thought.
Well, when an attorney cites the exact text from the constit itself (Art 6, Sec 2, supremacy clause) which is directly on point to a layman, who then responds with a totally off-the-wall made up definition of when it does not apply [when the real answer is “never;” it ALWAYS applies], a position not held by any court and not taught in any law school, a position which far, far exceeds the position the positions of even the actual lawyers who have clerked for federal judges and are sympathetic to overreach claims . . . please give me a clue… Read more »
Thank you for the reply, and I hope mine was taken in the spirit intended. In terms of the first paragraph: By authority, I meant personal. We do settle all disputes on the basis of some authority, hopefully that authority is not our own. In terms of the second paragraph: There is obviously no way to convince everyone. I am sure it is painful to listen to people speak over their heads. Any person with specialized knowledge in any field has to deal with the same dynamic you are describing. Knowledge is sorrow and all that… In terms of the… Read more »
Thx for the candor; will mull your points over. If I seem that way to you then I need to work on more than just tact. Still, layman or lawyer, I still think it’s true, for example, that Michael and Dave really are trying to make an argument for “nullification,” not for the 10th Ad. And Michael really did justify his position by claiming law students read too many cases and not enough original sources. (May I point out that [a] cases typically do in fact cover language drafting and sources [b] but Scalia is not alone in believing that… Read more »
There is nothing wrong with arguing a good case :)
But a good case is good because it is true not because it is argued by a lawyer.
I am just pointing out that appeals to authority (as a lawyer) and poisoning the well (you’re not a lawyer) have no necessary correspondences to the truthfulness of the assertions which follow.
I have no issues with the last paragraph.
Thank you for considering an outside perspective.
No, thank YOU for offering one.
Also, consider all the times I’ve said, roughly, “anyone can argue what the law OUGHT to be but saying what the law IS is a different.” I was aware of the tendency you have correctly pointed out and was trying to highlight the differences. Must not have done a good job.
In most circles, being a lawyer is not something one offers unless required to. If there is a more discredited profession in western civilization it is that of the politician (of which perhaps 60% are lawyers).
See below; your thoughts, please. I mean what sort of approach would you have suggested instead, if you don’t like this one?
Krychek_2 > Ilion • 3 hours ago
Let me guess — the 14th Amendment is illigitimate and should be ignored?
Ilion > Krychek_2 • 44 minutes ago
Do you even know who Chester Arthur was, much less that *no one* imagined that the 14th Amendment had any bearing on the question of who is and is not a natural born US citizen when the Democrats were trying to disqualify him from holding the presidency?
Granted that it is hard to be polite to people who refer to you as, “some fool who does not wish the truth to be known,” and granted further that there are times to be impolite, it is probably not a good habit to undermine people’s credentials to offer an opinion. Maybe it would be helpful to say: “Why do you think that no one thought the 14th Amendment had any bearing on the question of who is and who is not a natural born citizen in the case of Chester Arthur?” Considering the context, this instance was probably not… Read more »
I had in mind your take on K2’s opening . . . er . . . “shot?” . . . “fastball?” to llion.
Have some things to wrap up today, but I will try a few “Tim certified” answers later tonight.
BTW, FWIW, I had to stop for a second, because I can’t remember EVER seeing his name in print other than “Chester Alan Arthur.”
Don’t you find it curious — I know I do — that the only “offense” you managed to see was my “I’ll have none of that BS” response to Krychek_2’s passive-aggressive intellectually dishonest attempt at DISQUALIFY? I said, “Yet, the fact remains: Ted Cruz in not a natural born US citizen, as required by the US Constitution. Nor is Bobby Jindal nor Marco Rubio … nor is Barack Obama” Krychek_2 said, “Let me guess — the 14th Amendment is illigitimate and should be ignored?” That is *not* the response of someone who wishes to understand what, and why, another has… Read more »
llion, I am honestly not all that interested in pointing out things that some people can take to be offensive in some way. We live in a society with incredibly thin skin. For myself, I am fairly committed to not taking personal offense at anything that anyone does to me. It is the glory of a man to overlook an offense. When Kelly asked me to comment on that last quote, I mistakenly thought she was asking me to comment on something she said, not something you said. As a result, I read this statement, “Do you even know who… Read more »
My response to Krychek_2 was not a logical fallacy, and it certainly wasn’t an ad hominem fallacy. And it was the fitting response to her attempted dismissal of what I’d said.
Oh, it isn’t all that difficult to determine that someone is being intellectually dishonest — which, by the by, is what ‘fool’ means. And I give less concern to Miss Grundyish “tone” monitors than our host does.
Well if the clarification wasn’t helpful to demonstrate that I have little interest in being a tone monitor… I might as well play the role.
You seem kind of angry… do you want to talk about it? :)
That last is a pitch perfect sample of passive-aggression.
That’s why I copied the header “Ilion > Krychek_2 • 44 minutes ago” I was seeking your opinion of K2’s reply to Ilion and Ilion’s response. Guess I should have done a better job of highlighting THEIR words, not MINE. Sorry for the confusion. K2 and Ilion were . . . “assertive,” perhaps, not me – – at least not THAT time. [ ;) . ] And don’t worry about the subject matter. Ilion’s response to my final post was to just call me dishonest again. I have no quarrel with Ilion, either, but neither do I see any useful… Read more »
No worries. I misread. It was my fault.
Well, here’s what the 14th Amendment actually says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
I really don’t see how to reconcile that with your earlier comment that Jindal, Cruz, and Obama would not be citizens even if they had been born in the well of the US Senate. A simple statement that anyone born in the US is a US citizen seems fairly straightforward to me.
*Once again*, I will point out to you that the very generation (and even the very individuals) who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment never imagined (*) that it conferred the status of natural born US citizen upon the offspring of non-citizens simply by virtue of being born on US soil. (*) nor did the man whose interest would have been served had they imagined that try to argue that it did ==== “I really don’t see how to reconcile that with your earlier comment …” No one can see what he refuses to see. “A simple statement that anyone… Read more »
I wouldn’t say the views of the generation that wrote the 14th Amendment are totally irrelevant, but they come close. What matters is what the text says, and not what the writers think it says. As Justice Scalia (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, judges are not clairvoyant; they are unable to look into the minds of the framers, so all they can do is go by the words on the page. And the words on the page clearly and unequivocally state that any person born in the United States is a citizen. Period.
an intellectually dishonest individual: “I wouldn’t say the views of the generation that wrote the 14th Amendment are totally irrelevant, but they come close. What matters is what the text says, and not what the writers think it says.” Simply amazing! This intellectually dishonest individual is a post-modernist (and, of course, all post-modernists are intellectually dishonest; that’s just part of the territory). even intellectually dishonest individuals will state obvious truths … when they think it advantageous: “As Justice Scalia (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, judges are not clairvoyant; they are unable to look into the minds of the framers,… Read more »
Does it matter who gets to define what a word means? And what temporal effect it has? (Presuming there is any sound basis to believe
At some point Alex in W will return, posting another link to a figure saying “When I use a word, it means what I say it means.” Or, better yet, “No, the question is ‘Who is to be master?,’ that’s all.”
Do you even know who Chester Arthur was, much less that *no one* imagined that the 14th Amendment had any bearing on the question of who is and is not a natural born US citizen when the Democrats were trying to disqualify him from holding the presidency?
If you want to chase the case . . .
How do you come to your conclusion?
Nord357: “How do you come to your conclusion?” First, I want to thank you for approaching the issue rationally, unlike others. I come by this conclusion: 1) by the *meaning* of “natural born citizen” at the time the Constitution was written; 2) by the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795; 3) and, which meaning of “natural born citizen”, and the relevence of which laws, is attested in passing (for it was not the issue of the case) by the supreme Court (this capitalization is intentional, as per the Constitution) in the case of Minor v. Happersett — which, incidentally, was… Read more »
My understanding of the naturalization act of even 1790 leads me to believe that Cruz would be considered a natural born citizen
For some reason this URL was not live within his post earlier today, but it is now, and I just read some of it:
No clue how to say this in a Tim-approved manner, so I’ll just blurt it out: Ilion takes very seriously the idea that there is credible, substantial doubt of Obama’s being born in HI. Forget engineering or law. That sort of posture is an obstacle to credibility, regardless of the text on the 1790 act.
“No clue how to say this in a Tim-approved manner, so I’ll just blurt it out: Ilion takes very seriously the idea that there is credible, substantial doubt of Obama’s being born in HI”
Well, after all, I *did* have you pegged correctly from the start.
Or perhaps you just pegged yourself?
Nord357: “My understanding of the naturalization act of even 1790 leads me to believe that Cruz would be considered a natural born citizen” Here is the relevant portion of the Act of 1790 — United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790). “… And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the… Read more »
Perhaps looking at the laws in effect TODAY might matter? Ted Cruz was born December 22, 1970, while the earliest law below was passed in 1952. 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one… Read more »
Since the question is a *Constitutional* question, let us first look at what the Constitution requires. And what the *Constitution* requires is that the President be a natural born US citizen *OR* a citizen at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution — thus, George Washington, who was not a natural born US citizen, though born on the soil that became the US, was eligable to be President; and, similarly, Alexander Hamilton, who also was not a natural born US citizen, and was not born on the soil that became the US, was also eligable to be President.… Read more »
Somebody somewhere somehow by some method gets to define when and how a person is “naturalized.” OK, OK, “the President [must] be a natural born US citizen” (we can ignore the second half since that generation is LONG gone; if Harry Truman were still alive he could run for a third term, etc., etc.) Fine. No one disputes any of that. The Arnold/”I’ll be back” can serve as Gov of Calif. He can’t be Prez. But somebody somewhere somehow by some method gets to decide what constitutes being “natural.” This has NOTHING to do with being a lawyer or not,… Read more »
that intellectually dishonest person, again “And the same document Ilion quotes also says: “Art 1, Sec 8. [cls 1] The Congress shall have power . . . ; [cls 4] To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” The issue is not “What (or who) is a naturalized citizen?“, it is “What (or who) is a natural born citizen?” “So, even by Tim standards, I see no reason to say anything else on this topic. The rest of you good folks keep playing – – on not – – with Ilion on his definition of birthright citizenship but I’m dropping out… Read more »
Saw this. May God Bless.
See below for the actual law in effect TODAY. So, I’m not seeing how laws passed in 1790 or 1795 can take override laws passed in, say, 1952.
If you want to chase the case . . .
See below; I must ask you carry on sans moi.
Thanks for the input
Truly some things just boggle my little mind. Even folks such as Whelan acknowledge and support the Marbury (1803) concept of “judicial review.” Somebody somewhere will always be in charge of what word X in sentence Y means, and if it applies to Z or not. Is Kim Davis owed an “accommodation?” If so, did she ask for too much or not enough? Could we so much as play a baseball game if various people in the stands could take it upon themselves to decide that the umpire lacked the power to say it was a fair ball? Or that… Read more »
33 CFR 329.16, is pretty straightforward “changes are not considered final until a determination has been made by the division engineer.” :)
Some folks simply will swim upstream regardless of need or desirability. In this instance it appears that llion is not content that “natural born”citizenship may now be passed through the maternal line.
I could see a court opinion saying “we did that when we gave them the vote”
What thinkest thou?
I intentionally only wrote to you, so let’s leave him (Ilion) be. K2 has read plenty of Scalia, who is hardly alone in holding that the best guide to meaning is the final text itself. The “exegesis” of a statute follows the same techniques as biblical (and all other scholars ought to) use. Neither is infallible; for every “Look before you leap” there’s a “He who hesitates is lost.” There is a serious argument about what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant in 1868. The closest case on point is the 1898 case I cited before, but that boy was… Read more »
Take Two; fresh start following Tim’s suggestions.
Please say why each of those men does not qualify as a natural born US citizen. It would be most helpful if you gave a source/authority as to why each of them is missing at least one of the items required to qualify.
If you have time, please also describe why McCain does qualify.
Based on your earlier responses, it does not appear that “location of birth” affects the outcome. If I’ve misunderstood your view, please correct or clarify.
I’ve already explained why these men are not natural born US citizens.
Sorry, not following your argument. Is it patriarchal? Only the father’s citizenship matters? Or is it that both parents must be citizens? So if only the mother is a natural US citizen, then the children are not?
My father (d. 1989) was born in America but his father wasn’t. Frankly, I never asked if PaPa (d. 1940) had ever been naturalized. My mom’s side had been in America since colonial times. Am I eligible to be Prez? Seriously, I’m not seeing what you see.
Perhaps your explanation to Nord357 will suffice? He reads the 1790 act the opposite of you.
Doug, I suggest you delete Kelly’s post. Please.
So it seems.
You should be the blog moderator or at least a hall monitor somewhere.
Most blogs have a “troll” or “spam” button to alert the actual moderators to questionable content, McD/Rev Shaz (and who knows else?) got banned without a whisper of a hint from me.
Notice also that I did not (a) issue any orders (b) request a ban.
If you think my making a suggestion is out-of-bounds, ask Pastor Doug to ban me. Or something.
It has occurred to me that by banning the snakes Doug might have ensured an infestation of rodents.
Tim may yet succeed in charming a few?????
For the Spirit of Truth, United Methodist Hymnal #597
From the cowardice that dares not face new truth, from the laziness that is contented with half-truth, from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, Good Lord, deliver me. Amen.
Prayer from Kenya.
It looks like Orthodox Christians in Hungary don’t understand the Christian value of dhimmitude. Someone had better email them some references to Leviticus before NATO has to bomb them.
Does Christianity demand the end of the nation state? Why didn’t any Christian who lived prior to you realize it? Why don’t you like to take the beliefs of Christians who lived before you into account? It is because modern Americans believe in a syncretic religion corrupted by liberalism. Most of you have world views far more similar to Angela Merkel than John Calvin. In 1964 James Burnham wrote a book called Suicide of the West. The thesis of his book was that liberalism was the ideology of western suicide. “Liberalism has come to be the typical verbal systematization of… Read more »
That’s seems kind of shotgun. Who is the “you” to whom it is directed?
Those I’ve been discussing this with in comments on this post. Probably applies to some extent to all 21st century Christians including myself.
Watch out, Barnabas; you start arguing with yourself, you just might lose!
Trump/Cruz. Toss the religio-nazis (whatever the flavor) into a camp. Better get an attorney, Doug.
Who knows, it may well be a Samson moment.
The thing about Samson wasn’t his sterling personal character …
And hair is an area of weakness for both.
funny how you support Cruz
considering that from all the candidates
he is the one who has the most gender neutral and gender flexible marriage ( aka gender is irrelevant)
he may say he is against gay marriage, but with the way he runs his marriage- he is being logically inconsistent
how can one trust a man who instead of leading his wife
compromises with his wife…
You know these things how?
simple google search…
Claiming to have gained intimate knowledge of how a marriage is “run” by google search?
You must permit me to be skeptical.
Mrs. Cruz has a degree from Harvard and a high power position at Goldman Sachs. Is this your basis for thinking his marriage makes Cruz unreliable?
No, Heidi quit her managing director bankster career to further Ted’s political ambitions. She’s all peaches and cream now.
her refusal to live with her husband for one year of their marriage- cause she wanted her career.
using her husband to advance her career instead os supporting him
there is no gender in their marriage
all I see in gender fluidity and flexibility
if one justify that-they cannot be against gay marriage….