[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: The bright spot for the GOP is the defeat of Ted Cruz
Source: ChicagoNow
URL Source: http://www.chicagonow.com/politics- ... gop-is-the-defeat-of-ted-cruz/
Published: May 10, 2016
Author: Bob Schneider
Post Date: 2016-05-10 14:55:30 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 6279
Comments: 38

Many on the left are running around social media proclaiming that if Donald Trump is not at least the reincarnation of Hitler, he must be possessed by his spirit. Trump bears no resemblance to Hitler but a lot of his followers sure are fond of the Fuhrer.

Trump is not an ideologue. In fact, he is more buffoon than anything. He has more in common with a stand-up comic than he does with a dictator. He has no belief system, other than making money and self-promotion. He wings it most of the time, just blurting out whatever comes into his head at the moment with no plan, no script just a sort of word hemorrhage that could use a tourniquet.

He is so absent a belief system that he actually runs to the left of Hillary Clinton and neck-and-neck from an ideological point of view with hapless Bernie Sanders on some issues. On Trade, he has about as much grasp of trade issues as Bernie, which is not much at all.

One would think since he is a businessman, he would understand the economy. Yesterday, he said the USA would never default on debt because we print the money. Technically true, but ever heard of something called “Inflation,” Donald? You would need a wheelbarrow of 100 dollar bills to buy your latte if that ever happened.

On the other hand, we have Ted Cruz. Ted is the polar opposite of Donald Trump. He’s a true believer, doctrinaire, an ideologue with total intolerance and disdain for anything, or anyone who is against his interpretation of conservatism. He is disciplined and works from a script and is analytical.

Ted Cruz entire political career has embraced radical right extremist positions. He has not accomplished much from a legislative standpoint because he frankly does not believe in Government’s ability to do anything. Take a look at his time in the Senate; what has he done other than to take the nation to the fiscal brink for no purpose other than to gain attention?

His interpretations of the Constitution I find alarming especially in light of the fact he is a lawyer. His views on the Second Amendment are some of the most radical views around. He thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a convicted felon, terrorist, or mentally ill. Thankfully, his views are minority views even among gun owners.

His closest supporters don’t believe in separation of church and state. Senator Cruz has done nothing to denounce that view and many of his surrogates have openly proclaimed in interviews the separation of church and state is a myth. The Taliban agrees with that position.

What happened in Indiana was significant. Indiana has a very conservative GOP. This is the state where the Tea Party was strong enough to defeat long-time Senator Richard Lugar and elect Richard Mourdock who made a rape remark in the context of a discussion about abortion, and handed a safe US Senate seat to the Democrats. A party so conservative they would elect the likes of Mourdock said to Cruz, and to the GOP, “we’re not doing this. This is too extreme.”

It appears to me the GOP has no desire to win back the White House. Governor John Kasich of Ohio beats Hillary Clinton easily in every poll, head-to-head yet his campaign never picked up traction. Ted was not the darling of “establishment” GOP as some say, rather the darling of the extreme element. It appears the GOP is looking for a time-out to try and find its way.

Where will it find its way? That is a good question, and it appears there are no charismatic leaders with a vision right now. Clearly it isn’t Trump, who is all over the place in his positions. The party is in a bad way for leadership. It’s lost on most issues.

When I cast my first vote in 1972, the GOP offered conservative answers to problems in society. It offered an alternative vision to the vision of the Democratic Party. In today’s GOP, there is no vision, no problems are addressed. Part of the problem has been we let libertarians in positions of power. Libertarian thought never could get traction on its own. Why embrace something that failed?

Where does the party go from here? It needs to clean house and stop camping out on the wings. The Democrats have their own Pandora’s Box open with the Bernie gang. They are a few years behind the GOP but that same form of cancer is loose on them that got loose within the GOP in 1992 when the religious right flexed their muscle against President GHW Bush.

The defeat of Cruz was a step in the right direction. It is time for the party to start taking a critical look at itself, and cease with a platform of “No” and start looking at how it can come up with conservative solutions to problems. Otherwise, the Democrats will have a permanent lease on The White House.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

#4. To: Willie Green (#0)

His [Cruz'] interpretations of the Constitution I find alarming especially in light of the fact he is a lawyer. His views on the Second Amendment are some of the most radical views around. He thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a convicted felon, terrorist, or mentally ill. Thankfully, his views are minority views even among gun owners.

Gee Bob, if you are going to make stuff up, why did you stop where you did? Why not go on to assert Cruz thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a prison inmate? When you are just making stuff up, go for the gusto!

nolu chan  posted on  2016-05-10   16:11:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: nolu chan (#4)

Why not go on to assert Cruz thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a prison inmate?

Well, it DOES say "shall not be infringed", and there's no asterisk there that says *unless you're a convicted felon.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-10   19:47:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

Well, it DOES say "shall not be infringed",

Yes, the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms that the colonists brought with them into the union cannot be infringed. There was no colonial right for a felon, a lunatic, a terrorist, or a prison mate to keep and bear arms. No such right was brought forth into the union by the colonials.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-05-11   1:19:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: nolu chan (#15)

But, but, the amendment says "SHALL NOT be infringed"! And there's no asterisk there to say otherwise. So of course felons and lunatics and terrorists can keep and bear arms. It says so right there in the Scripture! ....er....the Constitution!

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-11   6:11:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

But, but, the amendment says "SHALL NOT be infringed"!

But the amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What is it that shall not be infringed?

One needs to determine what was intended by the term "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to determine what shall not be infringed. As stated in 1802 and quoted in Lynch v. Clarke in 1844, "The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law."

By the interpretation of some, one must find the Framers intended to protect, and did protect, a right that did not then exist and had never existed in the colonies, the several states or the United States.

It was the colonial common law right to keep and bear arms that was carried forth into the union.

Lynch v. Clarke, New York Legal Observer, Vol 3, 236, 245 (1844)

In 1795, Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in delivering his charge to the grand jury, in the Virginia Circuit, went into an elaborate dissertation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts over crimes, and after enumerating such as he deemed cognizable by the circuit court, he continued as follows: "In the foregoing catalogue, murder, man slaughter, robbery, piracy, forgery, perjury, bribery and extortion, are mentioned as crimes and offences; but they are neither defined nor described. For this reason we must refer to some pre-existing law for their definition or description. To what pre-existing law should this reference be made? This is a question of immence importance and extent. It must receive an answer, but I cannot, in this address, assign my reasons for the answer which I am about to give. The reference should be made to the common law. To the common law then let us resort for the definition or description of the crimes and offences which in the laws of the United States have been named, but have not been described or defined. You will in this manner, gentlemen, be furnished with a legal standard, by the judicious application of which you may ascertain with precision the true nature and qualities of such facts and transactions as shall become the objects of your consideration and research." (3 Wilson's Works, 357, 371.) And in the debates on the judiciary in 1802, to which I have before alluded, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, in an able speech in the House of Representatives, said on this subject, (what was not disputed, so far as facts were concerned,) that "the judges of the United States have held generally that the Constitution of the United States was predicated upon an existing common law. Of the soundness of that opinion I never had a doubt. I should scarcely go too far were I to say, that stript of the common law, there would be neither constitution nor government. The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law. And were we to go into our courts of justice with the mere statutes of the United States, not a step could be taken, not even a contempt could be punished. There would be no form of pleading, no principles of evidence, no rule of property. Without this law the constitution becomes a dead letter. For ten years it has been the doctrine of our courts that the common law was in force." (Debates on the Judiciary, 1802, p. 372. And see 1 Story's Comm. on the Const., 140, 141,; § 157, 158, and note 2; 2 ibid, 262 to 267 ; § 794 to 797 ; Rawle on the Const. 258.)

Quotes from State Constitutions

Connecticut - 1776

Paragraph 1. Be it enacted and declared by the Governor, and Council, and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, That the ancient Form of Civil Government, contained in the Charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the People of this State, shall be and remain the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the People thereof, independent of any King or Prince whatever.

- - - - -

Delaware 1776

Art. 25. The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.

- - - - -

Maryland, 1776

III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by jury, according to the course of that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practised by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by acts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights—subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Cæcilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.

- - - - -

New Jersey, 1776

XXI. That all the laws of this Province, contained in the edition lately published by Mr. Allinson, shall be and remain in full force, until altered by the Legislature of this Colony (such only excepted, as are incompatible with this Charter) and shall be, according as heretofore, regarded in all respects, by all civil officers, and others, the good people of this Province.

XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever.

- - - - -

New York, 1777

XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the state law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration respectively. That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth further ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of New York, and of the convention of the State of New York, now in force, and not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be considered as making part of the laws of this State; subject, nevertheless, to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State may, from time to time, make concerning the same.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)

5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-05-11   11:48:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: nolu chan (#18)

Blasphemer! That's a Catholic way of looking at it, adding in all that tradition.

This is a Protestant country! Sola Scriptura!

It says "...shall not be infringed"! Which means that convicts can have arms. It means Tsarnaev has the right to a nuke!

Oh, wait. No. He's a MUSLIM. The Founders were all Christians. "the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians". "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Which is to say: "A fully armed white Protestant male populace, being necessary to preserve the sovereignty of the state to do whatever said white Protestant males want to do within their territory, the right of all of the white Protestant males to have any sort of weapon they can imagine is absolute and ordained by God, and nobody can pass any laws to change any of that until the Rapture."

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-11   13:36:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

The Founders were all Christians. "the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians"

"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read "” departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

--Thomas Jefferson

http://www.google.com/search? q=Jeferson+indidels+of+every+denomination

What does "infidel of every denomination" mean?

VxH  posted on  2016-05-12   10:28:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: VxH (#22)

What does "infidel of every denomination" mean?

Within the context, it means one who is nominally a member of some religious denomination, but who is either not faithful to the tenets of that denomination, or doesn't believe them at all.

In Jefferson's time, virtually nobody proclaimed himself an atheist, certain their was no God. Most people with severe doubts identified with the denomination of their birth or choice, but then simply ignored it. That would be an "infidel of a specific denomination".

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-12   10:32:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)

"the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians"

It means FAIL, again, in the context of Your Worshipfulness.

 

"the People" includes infidels of EVERY denomination:

"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read "” departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."


--Thomas Jefferson

http://www.google.com/search? q=Jeferson+indidels+of+every+denomination

VxH  posted on  2016-05-12   10:40:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: VxH (#26)

It means FAIL, again, in the context of Your Worshipfulness.

It's chum for trolls.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-12   10:41:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27) (Edited)

It's chum for trolls.

It's a fundamental AMERICAN principle.

Wisely constituted by America's founders to prevent lying Jesuit Commies like you from doing bidness ala the state-establishment.

VxH  posted on  2016-05-12   10:50:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: VxH (#29)

It's a fundamental AMERICAN principle.

"FAIL in the context of Your Worshipfulness", is a fundamental American principle?

Fundamental American principles are not generally so muddy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-12   12:51:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 33.

        There are no replies to Comment # 33.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com