Friends, Colleagues, Former Students–Lend Me Your Ears

I am going to make a concerted effort next week to turn to other subjects in this blog, but for today, I feel compelled to make a heartfelt appeal to those I count as friends or colleagues, and to a multitude of former students of mine who appear to be supporting Donald Trump.

Please lend me your ears. I come not to praise Trump, but to expose him.

But I’m sure you already know that.

Donald Trump at DebateWhen Trump first announced his candidacy, which seems like an eon ago, I immediately viewed it as a joke. After watching his debate “performances,” that view only strengthened. Nothing he has done since has changed my mind, despite the fact that he is now the Republican nominee. The joke is now on us.

My first real indication that something was going terribly wrong was when I went to speak to a Tea Party group here in Florida. This was in early February, prior to the vote in Iowa’s caucuses. The group conducted a poll of its members and Trump won by an astounding margin. The man who spoke right before me was a Trump surrogate who assumed everyone was on his side, and judging by the response, he was correct.

Frankly, I was stunned.

Since the Indiana primary, it now seems as if nearly everyone in the Tea Party and/or 9/12 movements in my area has come out enthusiastically for Trump.

Book Cover 1In January of this year, I spoke to a large gathering of Republican women from across the state. My talk, which was about my book on Reagan and Whittaker Chambers, went over so well that I was besieged afterwards with invitations to come speak to various local Republican clubs.

That has not yet happened. Neither was I invited to speak to our local club this summer, even though I always have done so in recent years. I understand. My vocal opposition to Trump makes that rather untenable.

One of my regular readers, a man who has been active in Republican circles in another state but who also has chosen not to endorse Trump, wrote to me and said he has never felt so isolated from fellow Republicans and that he has been treated pretty much as an outcast.

I’ve also noticed that a good number of friends, colleagues, and former students who used to “like” my blog posts regularly have fallen strangely silent lately. Of course I know why; they have decided to back Trump, even though many, I’m sure, have come to this decision with deep reservations.

If you are part of that group, let me tell you that I do understand your frustration with the way things are. I’m also interpreting your silence as a measure of respect for me, not wishing to publicly come out against my position.

The most bothersome thing to me is that most of us all want the same thing, but we disagree on how to achieve it. Rest assured, your difference of opinion on Trump doesn’t sever our relationship, but it does sadden me.

Why? Well, in the case of former students, in particular, I had hoped that all I’ve taught so fervently these past decades would help ground you in principles. I’m not saying you aren’t principled—you continue to stand firm for all those things we believe in with respect to the rule of law, religious liberty, the proper type of education, etc.—but you somehow think that Donald Trump will protect and preserve what we all cherish.

That’s where I think you are violating your principles.

I’m especially disturbed by those who would say I am part of the establishment, and that’s why I oppose Trump. Good heavens, would anyone who really knows me say anything like that? I ask you, who is in bed with the “establishment” right now? Isn’t it Trump himself? Didn’t the “establishment” cut off all opposition to his nomination? Why are you now siding with the very people that have so angered you all these years?

After the Republican convention, an organization called Conservatives Against Trump came out with a statement that accurately conveys where I stand and why.

Against Trump 3

Let me share some of those comments.

The statement makes it clear that the goals of this group are what “we” have always encouraged: limited government, religious liberty, freedom of speech, the sanctity of life, and a strong national defense. It goes on to note,

We see no small irony in the fact that the Republican Platform Committee produced one of the most deeply conservative platforms in modern electoral history, but nominated a candidate who has taken positions contrary to its central tenets. Donald Trump is a contradiction to most everything the Party states as its core beliefs.

Abdication of principle is not the problem of those who oppose Trump; that abdication is found within the party that nominated him.

Then there is this reminder of where Trump has stood on policy and his previous political commitments:

Trump begins as a liberal Republican, arguably more liberal than any other Republican presidential candidate in recent memory. He repeatedly praises Planned Parenthood. He has donated significant money to liberal politicians – including Hillary Clinton.

He wants the government to run health care. He opposes entitlement reform. He supported the Obama stimulus spending plan, the auto bailout and the banks bailout. He opposes free trade agreements. Trump is much closer to the Democratic Party than the Republican. He is a man whose deepest creed is himself.

It continues with commentary on his character, which should be a primary concern of all real conservatives, and Christian conservatives in particular:

Donald Trump Addresses GOP Lincoln Day Event In MichiganThis pretend Republican has preyed on misunderstandings, ignorance, and sometimes violence and rank bigotry. He has been vulgar, coarse, demagogic, and cruel. He has mocked disabled people, lauded dictators, and insisted that military leaders would follow his lawless orders should he attain the Presidency. He has been slow to condemn racists – the very reason the Republican Party was founded. He has praised torture as a form of punishment and promised to extend retribution to the innocent.

4.1.1But what about the Supreme Court? Even if everything else I’ve said about Trump is true, we can’t let that slip through our fingers, can we?

Some of our fellow conservatives have argued that the Supreme Court vacancy compels them to vote for Trump. We respect them and their reasoning, but we do not agree. We do not trust that Trump would appoint a good Justice or, if he does, would fight for a conservative jurist against an adversarial Senate.

The statement correctly notes that the Supreme Court is only one part of the government and that a Trump presidency would probably be just as disastrous to the whole concept of our government as a Hillary presidency:

Furthermore, we would be gambling on a good Supreme Court nomination at the price of constitutional integrity – and this coming from a Republican President leading a party that prides itself on originalist jurisprudence.

We do not trust Donald Trump to bow to the authority of the Constitution or the laws of Congress. He is running on a platform of strength and action, and our Constitution was formed to hobble not just quick lawmaking, but the very kind of strongman governance Trump embodies, despite the angry clamor from a justifiably frustrated electorate.

The antidote is not to seek a “strong man” who will force everything to go the way he perceives it should. Recall Trump’s words at the Republican convention when he said only he can solve the problems of the nation. Really? That’s been the attitude of a steady stream of dictators throughout history.

So what is the solution?

The antidote is to put forward leaders who will appeal to our reason and virtue, not our instincts and vices. We are committed to the principles of the Republican Party, not because they belong to the Party but because we believe they are right and just. We are conservatives before we are Republicans.

We believe that politics is about the art of the possible. We have often been in a position of supporting the lesser of two evils. But Donald Trump appeals not to our better angels but to our baser instincts.

Constitutional RepublicThe statement then ends with the following declarations:

We will not compromise core principle for the sake of Party allegiance.

We will not allow vulgarity to stand in the place of virtue.

We will not allow Trump to be the face of the nation to the world – not with our votes.

We will not sit by idly and allow conservatism to be hijacked by a man who shares none of the values of Reagan and Lincoln.

We will support conservative candidates down-ballot.

We will vote our conscience because we believe such a vote is our right and duty as citizens and is never wasted — whether that be voting for another conservative candidate or a write-in.

We will continue to speak out on issues important for our nation. We will seek to impact the newest generation of voters and educating them on the Constitution, the role of faith, family, and freedom as the basis of limited government.

I am in agreement with every one of those declarations. I appeal to all of you—friends, colleagues, and former students—please rethink your support of a man who is just as much a threat to our government and our culture as the horrible candidate put forth by the Democrats.

It’s time to see Donald Trump for what he really is, not for what you hope he will be.

About Last Week’s Convention

There are different types of Trump supporters. First, there are the angry people who just want Trump to get back at those who they perceive have created all the problems in the country. Trump will build a wall, they say, and make America great again. We believe him.

They are so confident that he is the new political savior that their faith is unshakeable, no matter what he does. As Trump himself famously stated, he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue in New York and shoot someone and not lose their support.

I don’t write to convince those people of anything. They have stopped thinking.

Then there’s the establishment types who originally loathed Trump and still wish someone else had gotten the nomination. Yet they will support him because they are Republicans first and principled people only tangentially.

Finally, there are the true conservatives, many of them evangelicals, who would not ordinarily come near anyone like Trump but who are so afraid of a Hillary Clinton presidency that they have reluctantly pledged to vote for him. They know in their hearts he is probably reprehensible but they conclude they have no other choice; at least he might choose a good Supreme Court justice or two.

I write primarily for that last group. There remains some hope they can be persuaded that they have hitched their wagon to a leader who is going to destroy the republic in a way that Hillary cannot—by destroying the GOP itself and, in the process, undermining every moral value that Christians profess to believe.

When Ted Cruz spoke at the Republican convention last week, the Trump people and the media declared it a disaster for Cruz. Yet what did Cruz do, precisely?

First, Trump gave the invitation to speak. From all accounts, he knew up front that Cruz would not publicly endorse him. Second, Cruz gave his speech to the Trump campaign two days before he stood at the lectern to deliver it. Trump approved the wording.

Then, when Cruz told the delegates (and all watching throughout the nation) that they should not stay home on election day but go out to vote, and that they should vote their conscience and for those who uphold the Constitution, pandemonium occurred.

We now pretty well know that the boos that cascaded upon Cruz at that moment were orchestrated ahead of time. Trump’s people were prepared to initiate the booing when Cruz spoke that specific line.

What was so wrong with that? Are we not supposed to vote our conscience and uphold the Constitution?

Don't Vote Conscience

The uproar, to some extent, was the implication that voting for Trump is a vote against conscience. Well, for anyone who holds the Constitution, the rule of law, and Biblical principles paramount, I would have to agree.

Yet the wording was approved by Trump ahead of time.

Pundits have now declared Cruz persona non grata in Republican circles—never mind that he has since gone to rallies for Republican candidates and been well received. They rant that he broke his pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee.

I like what one person said about that particular complaint:

Christians need a serious primer in ethics. So many are attacking Ted Cruz because in their eyes he committed the unpardonable sin. He didn’t keep the pledge.

What they fail to understand is the nature of ethical dilemmas.
Sure it is right and proper to keep one’s pledges. It is also right and proper to defend the honor and dignity of your family.

So I ask all the Christian men criticizing Cruz, would you have any problem endorsing a man who insults your wife in front of the nation, makes your little children wonder if daddy is unfaithful to Mommy, and says your father was involved with the assassination of JFK?

Would you? If you could disrespect your family enough to endorse the lying scoundrel who made those attacks on them, then what kind of man are you?

After Cruz’s speech, Trump resurrected the conspiracy theory about Cruz’s father being in league with Lee Harvey Oswald. He actually brought it up again, despite the complete idiocy of the charge. He even praised the National Enquirer and said he couldn’t understand why it hasn’t received a Pulitzer Prize.

Stephen HayesStephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard then wrote an article provocatively titled “Donald Trump Is Crazy, and So Is the GOP for Embracing Him.” Hayes notes, with regard to the innuendo concerning Cruz’s father,

The Kennedy assassination is one of the most heavily investigated events in the past century. Cruz’s father was not implicated. There is no evidence to support claims that he was ever in the presence of Lee Harvey Oswald or had a role in the Kennedy assassination. And scholars who have studied those events have said without qualification that Cruz wasn’t involved. But Trump peddles his nonsense anyway.

Yet where is the outrage over Trump’s nonsense? Hayes continues,

Either Trump believes Rafael Cruz was involved or he’s making the implied accusation in a continued attempt to discredit Cruz’s son. In either case, this isn’t the behavior of a rational, stable individual. It should embarrass those who have endorsed him and disgrace those who have attempted to normalize him.

The degree of this normalization is stunning. The Republican nominee for president made comments Friday that one might expect from a patient in a mental institution, the kind of stuff you might read on blog with really small print and pictures of UFOs. And yet his remarks barely register as news. There are no condemnations from fellow Republicans. His supporters shrug them off as Trump being Trump.

Hayes further recounts other Trump craziness: peddling the theory that Antonin Scalia was murdered; that thousands of Muslims rejoiced in the streets of New Jersey on 9/11; the whole birther episode with Obama (sorry, folks, but I never believed that one).

When Trump went on Alex Jones’s radio program, he praised that 9/11 Truther who claims a 98% chance that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled bombings perpetrated by the US government—that Bush was behind it all. What did Trump comment about Jones? “Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.”

Really? Is this the man who deserves the vote of evangelicals who say they put Christ first in all things?

And what about the Republican party as a whole? It used to be the party of Biblical morality, pro-life, in favor of traditional families, etc. Yes, I know that the official platform states all those things, but the convention itself promoted the opposite in many ways. A “proud gay” man speaks and receives a standing ovation. Trump promises to be, in effect, a better president for the LGBT “community” than Hillary.

Trump’s acceptance speech didn’t even offer a cursory comment about the GOP’s pro-life position. Donald Trump Jr. has even stated that he doesn’t see what the big deal is about abortion; the Trump family is working to excise all those “social issues” out of the GOP.

On top of that, Trump sounded like the proponent of big government solutions. Or that he himself was the solution for all our problems. He is a total narcissist. In a Trump administration, the era of small constitutional government would be over.

This was a Republican convention?

Caboose

Hillary Clinton does not deserve the presidency. She ought to be in prison. Donald Trump does not deserve the presidency. He ought to be kept far away from any levers of political power.

Some of my readers have complained that I am aiming too much at Trump. Why not make Hillary the target? Do a search on my blog site. You should be satisfied that I’ve clearly laid out over the years the case against her.

Why focus on Trump? Because I’m appalled at the collapse of principle in those who should know better. I’m still hoping against hope that I can say something to help right this ship. We need to look beyond the 2016 election and try to salvage what has been best in the Republican party. That is my goal. And if that party is now beyond saving, I pray a new party will arise to take its place.

We should never sacrifice principle and long-term goals for the sake of short-term, unprincipled actions. Nominating Donald Trump is a short-term, short-sighted, unprincipled action that will be just as disastrous as another Clinton presidency.

Should Convention Delegates Be Unbound?

The Republican party is getting anxiety attacks from the latest move to deny Donald Trump the nomination at the convention. There is an organized effort to release the delegates at the convention from the restriction that they must vote for whoever won the primary or convention in the individual states.

Is this anarchy? Is it a threat to the voice of the people?

While not an exact comparison, let me offer a history lesson today.

We are so used to referring to our nation as a democracy that we fail to grasp what the Founders actually established. They called it either a federal republic or a constitutional republic. Regardless of the precise wording, the one word they always avoided—actually abhorred—was “democracy.”

Constituitonal Convention

James Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, and the comments made elsewhere throughout this Founding Era, reveal a profound antipathy to anything resembling a direct democracy. They constantly called to mind the ancient Greek city-states that were often democracies. The problem? The citizens were often deluded into following the rantings of popular speakers who would lead them astray by appealing to their emotions. Many Founders referred to democracy as “mobocracy.”

The word that describes those kinds of speakers/politicians is “demagogue.” As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a demagogue is “a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason.”

The Founding generation wanted cooler heads to prevail in political discourse and the decisions to be made by the federal government. That’s why they deliberately chose to divide up the representation in a number of ways.

Constitutional Republic

First, they did give the people a direct say by letting them choose their representatives in the House of Representatives. The Senate, however, was to be chosen by state legislatures, thereby giving state governments representation as well. A lot can be said about how we later changed that—for the worse—but I’ll let that slide for now.

The president, in the Constitution, is not chosen by a direct vote of the people, but by specific “electors” chosen by the state legislatures. The goal was to ensure that popular enthusiasm wouldn’t allow a poor choice. They hoped the electors, who were supposed to be the wisest of statesmen, would choose better. In fact, the first time a direct vote by the people became common was in 1828, three decades after the Constitution was ratified.

Again, that electoral college approach has been altered by states simply allowing the slate of electors for whichever political party wins the popular vote to cast the official votes. Keep in mind that in the disputed election of 2000, the Florida legislature would have been well within its constitutional rights to choose its electors rather than waiting for all those recounts to be completed. They didn’t do that purely for political reasons: they would have been accused of overturning “democracy.”

Unfortunately, that’s where we are today in our understanding of how the system is supposed to work.

One of the big arguments in the decades following the ratification of the Constitution was whether the congressmen elected by the people in the House could vote their conscience or whether they were bound to vote according to what the majority of their constituents wanted.

Andrew JacksonThe ones pushing for the latter position were primarily the Democrats who, with the advent of Andrew Jackson, began to believe that congressmen were mere ciphers who cast the official votes for whatever their constituents desired. The feeling began to grow that the people are always right.

But the overwhelming view of the Founders was just the opposite. They knew that people could be misled and congressmen had a responsibility to consider seriously every proposed bill that came before them and vote according to what they believed was best for the nation, regardless of what their constituents wanted.

If they went against the wishes of those who elected them, they then went back to the people to explain why they did so. If they could convince the voters that they did the right thing, they were reelected; if they were unsuccessful in convincing them, they resigned themselves to the results of the next election.

That’s called living by principle and following one’s conscience. That means a representative is exactly that—a representative—which differs from a public functionary who must do whatever the people demand, even if it goes against sound logic and good policy.

Why even have congressmen if they are mere functionaries robbed of their own minds? Just take a nationwide vote on everything and do whatever the people want at a given moment? Sorry, but that sounds very scary to me. Public opinion is anything but stable and principled.

So how does this relate to the upcoming Republican convention?

Republican voters in the states made their decision on who they thought the nominee should be. They send delegates to the convention to make it official. What are those delegates? Are they thinking people who should have an opportunity to evaluate the voters’ decision or are they mere ciphers who are forced to vote a certain way even if they believe it would be to the detriment of their party and the nation?

I’ve read quite a bit about whether these delegates are truly free to vote as they wish. I think the evidence comes down in favor of that overall. Yes, some states have told them they have to vote according to the results of the primary. One Virginia delegate has now challenged that in court.

In other states, the Republican party itself has dictated they have to vote according to the results on the first ballot, at least, or in some cases, beyond that. But party rules can be changed at the convention.

A hypothetical: suppose the presumed nominee, prior to this convention, should do something particularly outrageous, along the order, let’s say, of advocating a lifetime tenure for the president, or giving the president the authority to dismiss federal judges whenever he disagrees with a court decision. If such a presumed nominee were to do something like that, do you think it would be wise to force the delegates to vote for that person regardless? Or would the party then rethink its rules?

Donald TrumpThe nomination of Donald Trump has divided the Republican party in a way no previous nomination ever has. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicates 52% of Republicans are not satisfied with Trump as the nominee. That is unprecedented in the lead-in to the national convention.

Trump won only 44% of the vote in the primaries, and that figure is only as high as it is because he added to the percentage once his remaining opponents dropped out and the voters were resigned to having no other choice. Other polls indicate that up to 70% of the general electorate can’t stand this man.

Trump’s antics—whether one focuses on his character, his lack of policy knowledge, or his highly disorganized campaign—have not changed since his pledge to become more presidential in his bearing and manner.

Most political prognosticators (I know, they can be massively wrong at times) see an electoral disaster looming for Republicans.

Why, then, is the party establishment circling the wagons around Trump? They argue, with some discernment, that a circus at the convention would doom the party for sure in November. It might.

I would argue that going forward with Trump is the surest path to a Hillary Clinton presidency. Anyone else nominated would stand a better chance of beating her than Donald Trump.

So if the delegates were unbound, yes, there would be some instability introduced into this election even if Trump were to win the nomination anyway. And he would be an even more damaged candidate afterward.

If Trump were to lose the nomination at the convention, who would be nominated in his place? I don’t know. Perhaps that would be an even bigger tumult and the eventual nominee would be trounced in the general election.

However, it is also conceivable that someone might get the nomination who could unite the party in a way that Trump never can. If that should occur, and this nominee is a good communicator of Republican principles, there is a chance that the most despised Democrat nominee in history could be kept out of the White House.

I’m often accused of helping Hillary Clinton become president by not supporting Trump. I firmly believe, however, that those who are in Trump’s corner are the ones who are assuring a Clinton victory. He is electoral poison. Trump as the Republican nominee will put Clinton in the presidency.

So I do understand the anxiety over a contested convention, and I know there could be disastrous results, but I think we already have a disastrous result in a Trump nomination.

Free the delegates to be true representatives, not mere ciphers.

Obama’s Worldview & the Transformation of America

One’s worldview definitely matters. Take Barack Obama, for example. When he said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, he wasn’t kidding, and his inspiration for that goal is his radical worldview.

I believe that Obama’s vision is fueled by a fury against those he perceives as “oppressors.” He has an undercurrent of anger toward an orthodox Christian understanding of truth and the faith’s stance on morality. In his mind, Christianity provides the foundation of oppression.

That’s why he turns a blind eye to Muslim atrocities; they are an oppressed people simply getting back at a Christian-dominated culture that has unjustly kept them down.

That’s why he has turned morality upside-down, beginning with approval of homosexuality, followed by promotion of same-sex marriage, followed by a focus on transgenderism, leading to his decree that all public schools must allow any student who feels trapped in the wrong gender to use whichever restroom and locker room that student desires.

We Don't Care

Before proceeding, I can already imagine an objection, the tired old claim that Obama is a Christian. Well, using trendy terminology, I would respond that Obama may “self-identify” as a Christian, but his idea of Christian is more aligned with a radical, Marxist liberation theology, which is, at heart, anti-Christian. And his agenda has had the effect of putting long-recognized Christian morality on the defensive, hinting (and in some cases more than hinting) that those who hold to such ancient concepts of morality are rather bigoted and driven by hatred.

No, I don’t accept Obama’s self-identification as a Christian as legitimate.

I have two problems with Obama’s latest decree: the first is moral; the second is constitutional.

There are some people who are genuinely confused over their gender due to genetic disorders of some kind. That’s a purely physical cause, not a moral problem. But the percentage of the population in that situation, according to what I’ve read, at least, is about 3/10 of one per cent. What the Obama agenda requires is that we now reorient our entire society around those individuals.

And we all know his decree will be applied far more generously than that. Anyone who “feels” confused about gender identity will be allowed to use whatever restroom or locker room they choose. It’s a wide open door to sexual abuse; in a supposed move to be “fair” to a hypothetically discriminated-against segment of the population, the rest of the population will be forced to bow to the new morality.

It’s a certain Biblical passage now being manifested before our eyes:

Isaiah 5

Then there’s the constitutional side of things. Where, in that document, does one find the authority for a president—any president—to simply declare what will be the policy for all public schools nationwide?

Where, in fact, in that document, is there any authority whatsoever for the federal government to be involved in education at all?

Shot Constitution

I submit that no matter how long or how deeply one inspects the Constitution, such authority never will be found there. What we are seeing now is perhaps the most dictatorial action, among many other dictatorial actions, that Obama has ever attempted.

This is a clear case where states have all constitutional authority to rise up and say, “This will not happen here.” I applaud those state leaders who have spoken up already and sincerely hope more will join the chorus in the coming days.

We are supposed to be a nation operating by the rule of law, not by the whims of one man—and his party—who seeks to destroy all semblance of the rule of law.

We are a country at a serious crossroads right now. Is Biblical morality to be forever banished from our public policy? Are we finally going to kill whatever is left of our Constitution and give it a decent burial?

Or are we going to stand up for Biblical truth?

Answers to those questions are still forthcoming.

Why I Support Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz at KS CaucusIn this heated Republican nomination battle, I wholeheartedly support Ted Cruz. My support is not, as others have indicated, a choice between two flawed candidates; rather, I firmly believe Cruz is a committed Christian constitutional conservative who seeks to reverse the course of the last seven years.

My first knowledge of Cruz was in 2012 when he ran for the nomination for the Senate in his home state of Texas. His Republican opponent was the sitting lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst. Cruz startled the political world with his upset victory. Today, Dewhurst has endorsed his once-rival for the Republican presidential nomination, stating, “I want to make sure that we have a good conservative in the White House next January.”

Although a first-term senator, Cruz has taken a leadership role against the Obama agenda, much to the chagrin of the Republican leadership in that legislative body. I’m not sure his tactics have always been the best, but I can excuse failed tactics when I perceive that someone’s principles are solid; at least he, unlike most of his Republican colleagues, attempted to roll back Obamacare.

Cruz also once stood in the Senate and accused Mitch McConnell of lying to his fellow Republican senators, saying that McConnell had gone back on a promise not to make a certain deal with Obama. That earned Cruz McConnell’s enmity but showed he was willing to challenge his own leadership on the issue of integrity.

When he was the first Republican to announce his candidacy, and he did so at Liberty University, I admit I wondered if that was a political stunt designed to hoodwink conservative Christians. Now I believe it was a sincere effort to let that voting bloc know just who he is and what he wants to do as president. I also believe it was a wise move, as it provided a jumpstart to a campaign few saw as ready for prime time.

As Cruz stood on the stage in the debates that followed, surrounded by sixteen other candidates, it took a while for him to carve out his message—too many voices. At first, my pick was Scott Walker because I appreciated how effective he has been as governor of Wisconsin. When he chose to withdraw from the race, it came down, for me, to a choice between Cruz and Rubio. Although I liked Rubio, Cruz came across as much more consistent and, frankly, as more effective in debate.

That’s when I listened more closely to Cruz’s words and policy positions, and concentrated on his character. As I learned more about him, I became convinced his Christian testimony was genuine, a factor reinforced when I also listened to his wife, Heidi. If she is simply putting on a Christian “show,” she is one of the best actresses in the country. Her faith is the real thing as well.

Cruz is well-spoken, fully knowledgeable on the issues, and projects the kind of seriousness and lack of circus atmosphere that I want in a president. Neither has he descended into the gutter with Donald Trump, no matter how outrageous the latter has become in his personal attacks.

Ted Cruz 4I know that candidates can promise a lot and not be able to deliver, but when Cruz says he wants to repeal every word of Obamacare, he has a track record of attempting to do that very thing. When he declares that he will reverse every single unconstitutional executive order Obama has put into effect, I believe he will do precisely that. Why? He is devoted to constitutional authority and the limits placed on the federal government in that document. He understands that our liberty depends on the rule of law, the federal system, and the separation of powers.

Cruz’s Christian faith makes him a staunch advocate for the pre-born. When he says he will defund Planned Parenthood, he speaks from personal conviction, not political expediency. His Biblical morality is necessary in a time when we are a gender-confused and sex-crazed nation. He knows what real marriage is and what it is not; he knows which bathroom people ought to use.

Doesn’t that last statement reveal the depth of deception rising in our nation right now? Whoever thought anyone would have to affirm that?

Ted CruzTed Cruz will not be a progressive ideologue like the man who currently resides in the White House. He will not be a tinpot dictator who has used the system all his life to get what he wants at everyone else’s expense. Yes, I’m talking about the so-called “frontrunner” for the Republican nomination. A Trump nomination will doom the Republican party to defeat in November.

Hillary Clinton has to be the worst candidate the Democrats have ever put forward. Never has anyone been so eminently beatable. Cruz is the man who can carry Republicans to victory over Clinton. All Republicans have to do now is give him the chance to prove it.

Reject the phony candidate; choose Ted Cruz, the real Christian conservative constitutionalist.

Colorado & Representation: A Primer

Ted CruzHow about a reasonable discussion of what occurred in Colorado over the weekend, devoid of hyperbole and false accusations? First, here are the facts.

Last year, the Colorado Republican party decided to forego a caucus and simply have members of the party meet in their districts and at a general convention and choose delegates to the national convention. Each of Colorado’s congressional districts held their own caucuses to select some of those delegates; the convention then chose the rest.

I’ve always been in favor of the political parties choosing their own people. Open primaries, which allow independents, and even those who are historically members of the opposite party, to vote in the other party’s primary, is nonsensical to me.

So what the Colorado Republican party decided to do with its delegate selection is not unfair, but a true representation of what party activists would like to see happen.

The rules for this selection process were put in place last summer. Every candidate knew about these rules ahead of time. Ted Cruz, wisely, set up a very solid organization that worked hard to get the kinds of delegates who agreed with his candidacy. Donald Trump ignored the rules, did not set up any ground game at all, and didn’t even show up at the convention to speak to the assembled Republicans (8,000 in all).

Result: Cruz won all 34 delegates who are going to the national convention.

And now Trump is calling “foul,” labeling the process as corrupt, saying the people didn’t get a chance to vote. As one of my former students commented on Facebook, she was at that convention and she voted—is Trump saying she wasn’t one of the people?

ConstitutionLet’s dig a little deeper here. We don’t live in a democracy. Rather, we are a constitutional federal republic. The Founders who established the Constitution set up a system whereby the people had a direct vote for the House of Representatives, the state legislatures were represented in the Senate, and official electors from each state, chosen by the state legislatures, would cast the official ballots for president.

In this way, all players in the political “game,” if that’s what you would deem to call it, were represented. A constitutional federal republic believes in representation, but that is not the same as the people in general making all the decisions collectively. We were not supposed to be a “mobocracy.”

In our collective foolishness, an amendment was add to the Constitution back in 1913 that robbed state legislatures of their representation in the federal government by switching the election of senators to the people directly. No longer do senators have to answer to state legislatures and the laws they pass.

I would argue that one very detrimental consequence was Roe v. Wade, which overturned 44 state laws restricting abortions. If senators had had to take into consideration their state laws, they might not have confirmed some of those Supreme Court justices who opened the door to the murder of 58 million innocent babies.

As for the presidency, if you read the Constitution (which I strongly recommend), you will discover that there is no provision at all for a popular vote on who should be president. We allow that popular vote now—a practice that didn’t begin in earnest until about 1828—as a concession to getting some concept of where the people stand. However, it’s not the popular vote that absolutely determines the winner. Just ask President Al Gore about that.

In the same way, the political parties can set up whatever rules they deem proper in determining who should be their candidates. To complain about the process after the fact and begin calling it corrupt (when it didn’t appear to bother anyone ahead of time) is phony.

Donald Trump 3Let’s be clear. Donald Trump has famously announced that he doesn’t play by the rules. He clearly didn’t in this case. He proclaims that he has the best people. Are those the same ones who handed out ballots in Colorado with inaccurate information?

Trump says he can handle the presidency better than anyone in history, yet he cannot put together an organization in each state to deliver his message and get the results he wants.

D0047142_Frame58.tifI agree with Charles Krauthammer, who commented,

I think the assumption that Trump is making, his supporters are making is, that the only really fair way to do this would be something like a national primary, to have a direct correlation between the number of votes you get, and number of delegates, but you know, in Florida, Trump wins 47% of the vote, he gets 100% of the delegates. I didn’t hear anybody complaining about the unfairness. …

And the fact is, everybody’s had the rules for about a year and everybody had a chance to go after the delegates. Trump says in negotiations with the nefarious Chinese, and Mexicans, and Japanese, he’s going to win, they’ve been killing us, they’re so smart. But how’s he going to win? He’s going to have the best people. Well, if you can’t handle the Colorado delegate selection process, how’s he going to handle the nefarious Chinese?

What happened to the 53% of the votes in Florida of those of those who do not support Trump. I don’t think they have any complaint that Trump has all of the delegates, because those were the rules going in, everybody understood them.

As a citizen of Florida, I don’t like the result, but I’m not complaining about how my vote didn’t count. And here’s another point: Trump has amassed about 46% of the delegates at this time while only winning 37% of the vote of the citizens of those very states where he received those delegates.

It appears to me that Donald Trump has been the one who has benefited thus far from the process. Only when he loses a state does he begin to bellow about unfairness.

Just before posting this blog today, I was alerted to a report about the chairman of the Colorado Republican party receiving death threats from Trump supporters. Here’s what Steve House, the party chairman, posted:

Death threats over running a caucus instead of a primary because it is the law here and over the fact that one candidate[Cruz] had a better strategy and a much bigger team on the field.

3000 phone calls with many being the trashiest stuff you can imagine over a tweet we didn’t send and because a candidate [Trump] says he didn’t get to speak at our convention when we tried very hard to get him there.

Shame on the people who think somehow that it is right to threaten me and my family over not liking the outcome of an election.

We need a grownup in the White House, not a petulant child who whines about not getting his way all the time.

On Being Christian, Principled, Constitutional, & Conservative

On this day after Super Tuesday II, I would like to simply review what I wrote a couple of days ago about how I believe we should make our voting decisions. In that earlier post, I wrote about a Christian principled constitutional conservatism. In summary, I stated the following:

  • If you claim to be a Christian, you ought to seek out a candidate who shares your Christian faith and has the life to back it up. At the very least, you should find someone who respects Christian faith and will promote religious liberty.
  • If you say you are principled, you should examine carefully the principles of those wanting your vote. If they are opposite to what you say is essential, or if the person seems to have no principles except “winning,” you should avoid supporting such a person.
  • If you express devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law, your candidate should do so as well. If that candidate rarely mentions either one, and seems to admire other leaders who are powerful, that should be a distinct warning sign that you should look elsewhere for a standard-bearer.
  • If you say you are a conservative, you should want someone who is steeped in conservative thought, understanding the foundations of that approach, and clearly enunciating conservative policies. If, instead, that candidate has never shown any connection to real conservatism, you probably shouldn’t believe any recent professions of conservative values.

Donald Trump fails on all four of these criteria. He doesn’t just fail marginally; he is a total wipeout in all of these areas. Yet he is now on the cusp of becoming the Republican nominee for president.

There are certain dangers we ought to avoid:

Trump Ballot

I’ll offer a more comprehensive analysis in tomorrow’s post, but I just wanted to sound the alarm today. Is anyone listening?