ted cruz

Donald Trump and the ‘Pain Principle’

Donald Trump and the ‘Pain Principle’

There are some among my friends and esteemed colleagues who claim that they absolutely will not vote for billionaire Donald Trump should he officially secure the GOP nomination at the Republican convention later this year because he is not a real conservative with a proven conservative track record. Others asserted that they absolutely would not have voted for Texas Senator Ted Cruz if he had secured the GOP nomination because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States as stipulated in Article II, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

In these assessments, my friends and esteemed colleagues are essentially correct. This does not mean that I would refuse to vote for either of these men on principle, however.

So, does this mean that I’m unprincipled?

Well, let us for a moment examine the principles involved in such decisions in general (rather than my own principles). There were indeed substantive arguments against both Trump and Cruz as nominees – and by “substantive,” I mean other than those which start out with the spectre of a Trump presidency being a cataclysm of biblical proportions, or that Cruz is a miserable person whose father was the gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Those are not substantive arguments.

There is also no substantive argument that either of these men could possibly be an inferior choice compared to Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – and I realize that there are those in the Republican Party who have said just that.

Now that socialist policies have rendered over thirty percent of Americans aged 18 to 26 sufficiently brainwashed that they claim to favor socialism over capitalism and the democratic process, we have arrived at a place where nearly half of voting Americans will knowingly vote for an openly socialist candidate. Never mind the half-billion people killed and millions more maimed and enslaved by socialists during the last century, or the readily apparent failure of socialism in Europe and Scandinavia; American socialists are smarter than those dopes, and they’ll do socialism better than everyone else has.

Here’s a principle to consider: In an election between a socialist and a non-socialist, it is our civic duty to keep the socialist out of office whether or not we are particularly fond of their opponent.

Actually, it is quite easy to understand the motivator behind so many Republican, Democrat, and swing voters having gravitated toward Donald Trump (who is preaching a nationalistic message), or Ted Cruz (who actually is a firebreathing conservative).

That motivator is pain.

The fact that presidential elections are won based primarily on economic factors has been known to voters and candidates alike for decades. In electing Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, America boarded a bullet train to Destination Socialism; in the ensuing eight years, the destructive effects of rapidly-encroaching socialism upon individuals and families became starkly apparent, as did the inaction of establishment Republicans in ameliorating those effects. Half of our workforce is out of work, millions have lost jobs and homes, and Obama’s regulatory and trade policies continue to exacerbate our economic woes. In a manner befitting a Soviet Premier, the saboteur in the White House lauds his economic policies and the glorious state of the economy – unchallenged by the press or his ostensible Republican opponents, of course.

Voters correctly surmise that a Hillary Clinton presidency or that of an establishment Republican will only bring more of the same.

In short, voters in increasing numbers are coming to the conclusion that we effectively have a one-party system wherein Democrat politicians are vigorously driving the international socialist agenda, with Republican politicians simply providing a face-saving foil (which I have referred to previously in this space as “token resistance”) against Democrats.

The fact is that a significant number of American voters – perhaps even a majority – don’t want anyone from either party who represents the establishment becoming our next president. These people would vote for you, or me, or an Airedale if they thought we had a good chance against Hillary Clinton. One has to be able to set aside emotionally-based prejudices toward Donald Trump in order to adequately appreciate this logic.

Additionally, the deportment of those once considered conservatives, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and commentator William Kristol, has gone a long way to clarifying the term “neocon” for those who remained unsure of precisely what a neocon is: A progressive (socialist) establishment Republican masquerading as a genuine conservative.

Finally, the petulance of self-described conservative voters who vehemently oppose Trump has illustrated their ignorance and ideological inconsistency. Pundits from Rush Limbaugh to David Horowitz have pointed out the disingenuousness of conservative voters who cite the Constitution as the inerrant Word of God, yet advocate stealing the nomination from Trump by any means necessary because they think he’s an icky guy.

Psychologists maintain that for human beings, the avoidance of pain is a much more effective motivator than the prospect of pleasure. Political analysts have long said essentially the same thing through citing economic factors over ideology as voters’ prime motivator.

If Donald Trump wins the presidency, it will pretty much validate these claims once and for all, whether or not Trump follows up on his campaign promises – and that is a question we face during every general election, no matter who becomes the new President-elect.

 

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
The Real Culprits in Eligibility Flap

The Real Culprits in Eligibility Flap

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

– Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution

To an extent, I am somewhat surprised to see the issue of eligibility for the office of president of the United States rearing its head at this point in time for reasons that shall become evident presently. On the one hand, in light of the fraud perpetuated by Barack Hussein Obama and his surrogates in this area, it is easy to understand that those for whom the rule of law still carries weight would want to to ensure that such a thing never occurs again.

On the other hand, it is apparent – at least to me – that both the Democratic and Republican parties have resolved to play fast and loose with the issue of eligibility, and it seems unlikely that they will switch gears and clarify what constitutes eligibility in the middle of an election cycle.

The lingering question relative to eligibility is that of what constitutes a natural born citizen as proscribed in Article II, discounting the summary proclamations of Obama minions, ethically compromised lawmakers and members of the press. Two schools of thought have emerged and are now being debated, indeed even more vigorously than they were in 2008: The “living Constitution” interpretation versus the “originalist” view.

As we’ve seen, the “living” paradigm often translates into support for whatever those who are advocating for something desire a constitutional article or clause to mean. The “originalist” view (which argues for designations more in keeping with those of America’s founders), though more stringent, is unfortunately even less clear on the topic of eligibility.

Many legalistic arguments have been written over the years concerning what our nation’s founders believed a natural born citizen was, but none has been codified into law. For many years, conventional wisdom held that a natural born citizen was someone born of parents who were U.S. citizens. Although an individual’s place of birth itself has given rise to debate over the last eight years, in the past, this point was practically immaterial; no one would have ever suggested that a child born to an American couple on vacation in Egypt was a natural born Egyptian.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has brought the question to light again in recent weeks as regards the eligibility of fellow GOP contender and conservative favorite Ted Cruz. A few days ago, a Houston attorney filed a federal lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility for the office of president on the basis that Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. GOP hopefuls Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal have faced similar questions concerning their eligibility.

As noted by the New York Daily News, many grass-roots conservatives are averse to arguments charging Cruz’s ineligibility; Trump discovered this last Saturday when he got booed for raising the issue at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention.

Is this because the aforementioned grass-roots conservatives are ignorant of Article II? Is it because they don’t care, considering Cruz’s conservative credentials and the fact that the issue of Obama’s eligibility remains unresolved? Perhaps they believe that if the establishment has decided to skirt eligibility requirements, then Cruz ought to have a shot.

In another camp, there are constitutional conservatives who have been active for a long time in advancing awareness of Article II and what they consider to be Obama’s ineligibility. Despite their respect for Cruz as a senator and a conservative, they are bound and determined to see that he never gets the Republican nomination.

To the consternation of many conservatives, last week radio talk-show host and attorney Mark Levin asserted that both Cruz and Obama are natural born citizens by virtue of their mothers having been U.S. citizens, and thus are both eligible to hold the office of president. Many find this absurd on its face, given the reasoning that the Constitution’s framers used for including Article II. The idea that these men would have accepted matrilineally-descended natural born citizenship is a major stretch, given how patriarchal society was in the 1790s, and this is reflected in political writings of the day.

Further, as some have argued, in Levin’s view, one could have an “eligible” candidate born of an American mother and foreign father who is by all appearances a fiercely loyal American, and another with the same credentials dedicated to the destruction of the Republic.

The core problem with eligibility at present is this: The distinct lack of clarity around the definition of what a natural born citizen actually is from a legal standpoint is due solely to the craven deportment of the leadership in both parties. The push for such clarity has been deftly avoided for decades because both parties feared that in establishing clear legal parameters for eligibility, the politically-adroit-though-ineligible scumbag they were potentially excluding might one day be their own presidential hopeful.

Given the character of a preponderance of our lawmakers and government officials as starkly revealed over the last several years, Americans have no reason nor right to be surprised by this monumentally egregious lapse of ethics on their part.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment

Why NOT Ted Cruz?

In the midst of the crisis over whether or not the U.S. would execute a military strike against Syria being turned down to simmer, and the impending implementation of Obamacare and threat of a government shutdown, there was one person possessed of a calm voice of reason. Quietly focused on the latter set of circumstances, he prepared his case for the American people rather than to them.

A singularly welcome change on its own, if I do say so myself.

ted-cruz-filibusterIt is unlikely I will ever laud a politician to the degree that might be called “reverence” (the “man crush” liberals accuse people such as myself of having on Ronald Reagan notwithstanding). I won’t shrink however, from giving a politician his or her due when he or she actually does the people’s work, particularly in these days of emerging tyranny, rampant thieves, cowards and outright criminals holding high office.

Texas junior United States Sen. Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was swept into office in 2012 in a tea party-driven campaign. During its course, he defeat the establishment Republican David Dewhurst, Texas’s lieutenant governor, for the GOP nomination and won against former state Rep. Paul Sadler, the Democratic candidate. Cruz has a stellar record, including having been the first Latino solicitor general in Texas and the first Latino to be elected U.S. senator from Texas. Despite all this, he is not regarded as a political wunderkind or Ivy League god by the press because he is all at once a conservative, a Republican and an ethnic minority.

Even though Obamacare is but an acute symptom of the disease of progressivism, and there are indeed more imminent dangers to Americans’ life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (believe it or not) at present, suffice it to say that any effort to stave off the effects of the health-care law is a worthwhile pursuit. As the reader is likely aware, Mr. Cruz has been the most vocal champion of the Obamacare defunding movement, the hallmark of which was his 21-hour Senate floor speech on the 25th of September.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Government