MAKING THE CURE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE

Do kids still read the Old Lady who swallowed a fly? When I was a kid I used to get my dear sainted mother to read that thing to me all the time. While it wasn’t my favorite, it couldn’t hold a candle to Rackety Boom or Bravest of All, it was always a good bedtime laugh. In the story the little old lady swallows a fly and in fear of the possibly mortal effects swallows progressively larger animals each as a cure for the other until she swallows a horse… she’s dead of course. I would love to send a copy to those folks in Washington DC and the various state capitals across the fruited plane because that silly rhyme is the closest example to the Covid 19 response I can think of.

Covid 19 or the Chinese Coronavirus is a serious thing and among vulnerable populations it can be deadly.  As of this writing 2,000 people have died and I would encourage prayer and support for the families of those victims, just as I would for the 24-64 thousand folks that influenza has claimed this year. Bottom line is we deal with the flu deaths every year despite having some highly touted and barely effective flu shot without crippling our economy and bankrupting our future.

Most states give governors power to take reasonable actions to deal with infectious disease, unfortunately the declaration of the state of emergencies has caused governors everywhere to suffer from the unfortunate delusion that they are Yul Brenner in the Ten Commandments as they decree “So Let it Be Written, So let it Be Done”   as they sign executive orders declaring who is essential and who is not. I can’t help but be reminded of Governor Kodos from the original Star Trek who ordered the deaths of nonessential colonists to save essential ones in a time of famine. Don’t laugh, these powers to temporarily shut down those businesses that Governor Ramses deems unworthy is exactly the power that the green new deal democrats want to have permanently, after all according to their experts global warming is far more dangerous than the Chinese coronavirus. Of course this temporary state of emergency isn’t the same as what the aforementioned Dems want but it is a huge step in that direction.

If our free election process survives, and I am certain it will, we the people must act to take back our liberties and seriously curtail the emergency powers we entrust our governors with. I do not doubt that the electoral process in our country will survive but it will not survive unscathed. The most sacred aspect of our democratic republic has also fallen under the whim of the Supreme Pharaohs of the several states, as 14 states have rescheduled their primaries based on Coronavirus fears, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wyoming and Puerto Rico.  The Governor of Ohio blatantly defied a court order forbidding him to do that very thing, imagine if Trump simply threw court orders out the window if he didn’t like their rulings? Surely I stipulate that these are primaries and are held at the discretion of parties and states, I am not suggesting that the President could use this as a justification to cancel national elections, but  it’s a big step in that direction.

We have already addressed the government hubris that defines the labeling of essential and nonessential businesses, but separately let’s address the asinine nature of these decisions. If you concede (and I do not) the authority of states to shutter private businesses at will it is impossible to justify the wisdom of the same. How does a bankrupting small business in Hiram Georgia stop the spread of infection in Manhattan? Perhaps these extreme measures are needed in hard hit areas but the strength of America in part is in our size and diversity. Droughts in the mid-west do not lead to famine because the same weather pattern may well produce a bumper crop in the Ohio Valley. New York City can be shut down by a terror attack but hundreds of other municipalities and cities can send resources to help them recover, the same is true of earthquakes in California, or floods in Tennessee. If we had a smart targeted response that allowed lightly affected and unaffected areas to continue to work and create wealth then the economic consequence would be minimized. Aid could be sent to places that need it, Americans would take care of Americans the way we do in every other crisis. Entrepreneurs would do what entrepreneurs do, they would find new ways to make money by fixing problems, rather motivated by altruistic or mercenary goals their solutions would be available. This is not to minimize what the private sector is doing in this crisis the advances in testing and treatment that have leapt from zero in just a few short weeks is phenomenal. Thankfully the President has resisted calls to nationalize industries and supply chains, and further tamp down the spirit of enterprise that will elevate us out of the dark times. Alas if we weren’t so dead set on crippling and destroying the economy and thus the ability of millions to contribute in big and small ways to abating the crisis what great things we could achieve!

Finally let’s remember that only about 10% of the crisis in this country is from the virus, 90% is the panic stricken responses. As we progressively swallow bigger and bigger animals to kill the fly we swallowed when we imported, through no fault of our own, this virus from China the horse that kills us may well be this relief effort passed by congress last week. 2.2 trillion dollars of new debt to do what churches (and oh do I have a lot to say about churches) and businesses should be doing without depleting the public treasury at all. It wasn’t enough to bankrupt our economy today; we need to pay for it by bankrupting our grandchildren and their children as well. Bernie Sanders couldn’t have imagined such an overwhelming victory over capitalism in his fondest dreams.

I heard President Trump say that it’s important to look at reopening the economy and assure that the cure isn’t worse than the disease, thank you Mr. President, better late than never.

Keep on the firing line.

Covid 19 Necessary Response or Totalitarian Over Reach

Two articles have come to my attention today that sum up my fears over the Corona virus outbreak response the first from Judge Napolitano, with whom I often disagree, the second from the Heritage Foundation, with whom I generally agree. https://www.creators.com/read/judge-napolitano https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/constitutional-guide-emergency-powers

Napolitano fears that the that the response threatens freedom over the long term and that the consequences of losing that freedom is far more dire than the threat a virus, even a horrific one, could impose. I agree. If inalienable rights can be alienated by a crisis, they cease to be rights but become license to be revoked as the government sees fit. These Napolitano thoughts could have been taken from my YouTube comments and texts, though my versions were notably less eloquent.

However when I did additional research via the Heritage Foundation I learned that infectious disease is treated differently by law then a standard crisis, in times of epidemic state local and federal laws allow for reasonable measures to be taken  where needed even if those measures may be extraordinary. They cite numerous cases and precedents which are legally binding even if I disagree with those cases and precedents.  

The totalitarian instincts of government are not confined to the malicious intents of would be petty dictators, rather we dare never forget that unshackled from the constitution as our government increasingly has become tyranny is not possible but inevitable.

To keep the forces of government under control it is important to recall that government derives its just power from the governed, and we the governed have been far too liberal in giving over those powers. Herein lies in my humble opinion the key, we have enabled our leadership to take reasonable steps in times of infectious disease epidemics. We the people must determine if the steps being taken are reasonable.

I am fairly comfortable that the federal response has been in accordance to statute, and in my opinion mostly correct, though I am unconvinced that the level is totally justified, state and local governments are the front line defenders of public health and we have entrusted them with very broad powers , but do we really want to grant governors the power to lock down entire states and shutter churches indefinitely?

It is time to define reasonable for the sake of public health emergencies. Once a power is abused it must be revoked, this applies to the FISA court and it applies to public health. When this crisis passes or if it goes on too long we the people need to reign in the reach of state and local governments, We the people need to define what the limits of state and local powers are with regard to religious institutions and private businesses we need to define the parameters of when these powers can be implemented and for how long.

I know we have to have flexibility on these matters epidemics don’t follow time tables but we are individuals and must be allowed to act and think as individuals, we need to be permitted to decide for ourselves how to best protect ourselves and our families.

After all we are Americans

Keep on the firing line

From Never Trump to Never Hillary

Last time I asked Donald Trump to convince me to vote for him, it’s taken me this long but I have decided to. Trump’s stands on the issues has evolved to a point where I can support him if, and it’s a big if, he is serious. In the end though Trump is irrelevant and he stands ready or not, with a great opportunity to rekindle the fire of freedom in the American experience.

My greatest disappointment about this election from the primaries on is the lack of substance in the debate, this was of course by design and I was mourning the fact that even if Clinton lost it would be her unlikability and corruption that defeated her not the exposing of her ideas as un-Godly and un-American.

All that changed when the FBI reopened an investigation into Clinton’s e-mails and the corruption and collusion that has been exposed by Wiki-leaks and it may be that Hillary’s defeat in this election could begin to dismantle the entire corrupt liberal machine. That is what I am going to vote for.

Mr. Trump, many times in history an unworthy man has been called upon to do a noble and worthy deed, I hope you are up to it.

Keep on the firing line, America is worth it.

Very Well Mr. Trump, convince me.

From the very beginning of the primary process I had an A list (Cruz, Walker) of candidates I wanted to support,  an A- list of candidates that intrigued me and could have easily won me over (Carson, Jindal) a B list of candidates I could support despite one or two important policy points (the biggest group, Fiorina [spending] Perry [parental rights] Rubio [immigration] Paul [defense] Santorum [Bush era voting record] ) a C list of candidates I could vote for if I absolutely had too (Bush, Huckabee) and finally ones I couldn’t support regardless either because they were not pro-life or because as governors they supported Medicaid expansion under Obama Care  or they had a long record of selling out conservatives and empowering Obama/Reid/Pelosi (Kasich, Graham, Christie, and worst of all Trump)

A few other names I didn’t take seriously enough to research.

As has often been the case I didn’t get my way.  Walker pulled out early rather than divide the conservative field, Carson had a good run but fizzled out and Ted Cruz after falling behind in a divided field ran an impressive string of victories after all the other serious candidates had withdrawn, I don’t count Kasich as a serious candidate, climaxed by a huge win in Wisconsin. He seemed poised to stop Trump from winning the nomination outright and was in a strong position to win in a contested convention, before Trump regained momentum with wins in several democrat stronghold states before winning decisively in the Indiana primary. Exit Ted Cruz. Here is an open letter to Donald Trump offering him a chance to change my mind and win my support.

Mr. Trump, I have stated from the beginning that I will not support you for a number of reasons, your previous stands as a far left liberal, and your abrasive style topped the list. Thus far you have only offered evidence to support my position, but as barring a miracle you will represent my party in the general election I will give you the opportunity to convince me to abandon my earlier opposition to your candidacy.

I disagree with those who suggest it is my responsibility to get on board; it is up to you to extend your hand to me and offer to help me see the light. After all ever since Abraham Lincoln stole the nomination from John Seward in a fixed and rigged system (using your logic) it’s been the job of the nominee to unite the party behind him and convince those who originally supported someone else to do more than just begrudgingly cast a vote but to actively support their candidacy.    Ronald Reagan did so when he chose his formal rival George H W Bush as his VP. If the hard work of uniting the party following a tough nomination process was good enough for Reagan and Lincoln, it’s good enough for you.

The argument I don’t want to hear is “better then Hilary” because I fear our party has once again looked at a perspective field of nominees and found the only one who could lose.  For instance what is to stop Hillary Clinton from making an add out of the interview where you proclaim your deep admiration for her as secretary of State? “Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman. I’m a little biased because I’ve known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. And I’ve known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot. And I think she really works hard. And again, she’s given an agenda that’s not all of her. But again, I think she really works hard. I think she does a good job. And I like her.” This is what you said when you were not running against her and this is hardly ancient history it was 2012. With the Republican nominee’s endorsement how can she lose? Let’s say you take the gloves off and hit her on all the legitimate scandals she has been involved in during her long public life, something I am not certain will happen, since RINOS tend to destroy conservatives viciously in the primaries then play softball with liberals in the general, what is to stop her from pointing to your ridiculous accusations that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination and use that to completely undermine any credibility you have?

As a Christian life is the most deeply fundamental issue of all to me. You ran as a pro-life candidate in the Bible belt primaries but when pushed by Chris Mathews (a hostile interview but one that was expected to be so) you were unable to state simple actual policy point mimicking instead what you thought pro-lifers think (this is my guess) before changing your view multiple times and coming to the conclusion, “[Abortion] ‘laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way”.   Now you want to nip at the edges of the long standing (since the Reagan Revolution of 1980) Republican Party platform’s pro-life cause.  How can I possibly support someone who’s pro-life convictions lead to the conclusion leave it as it is, let millions die?

Other serious questions arise from related topics. You refused to support Kim Davis in her refusal to violate her religious views by issuing licenses for gay marriage by saying “You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land,” How do I believe you will support religious freedom let alone traditional marriage? What of your support of all the wonderful things planned parenthood does, other than the abortion stuff? Please clarify: are you referring to its opposition to any laws that would make abortion centers comply with the same standards as other outpatient surgery centers, to its selling of baby parts for research, its promiscuity based sex education curriculum, or its history of anti-minority eugenics?  They don’t do much else, other than provide a few references, so which of these is wonderful?

One case where you have allayed some of my fear is the Supreme Court specifically partnering with Jim DeMint concerning the replacement for the vacancy created by Justice Scalia’s sad death.  A good start, but what of other federal judges and future Supreme Court vacancies? Do you feel the court still functions within its constitutional boundaries, and if not how would you rein it in?

This leads to another question, one that encompasses all of the above and leads into all future questions I would ask. Is the current state of affairs in governance in line with the constitution of the United States or has the central government exceeded those powers enumerated to it by the Constitution. I have never heard you address the constitution in any substantive way but your views on eminent domain and support for and individual mandate for health insurance raise huge red flags, as does your statement that you will do smart executive orders rather than Obama’s stupid ones. I think all candidates should have some sort of manifesto where they explain the proper role of government and what its limits are. My fear sir is that your particular brand of populism seeks to keep and empower much if not all of the bloated government and do little if anything to promote individual liberty, private property rights, or economic freedom. It is incumbent upon you to tell me where I am wrong.

The nature of the campaign of personal destruction you have run so far and the nearly complete lack of substance lends a great deal of skepticism. I cannot think of a way off the top of my head that you could make me believe what you say given the elastic nature of your principles to date, but this is a challenge you have created for yourself. I shall watch between now and the conventions when you become officially the nominee to see if any of my concerns are addressed.  

Sincerely,

John Tabler, conservative, constitutionalist, Republican voter

Hey Hoosiers, a Hand Please

Tomorrow is Indiana’s Primary so this is just a very short couple of thoughts about what the importance is. I don’t know if anyone will read this in time but I feel obligated to try.

First of all the problem for those of us who oppose Donald Trump is simple, Trump inspires the passion. The passion for and the passion against, so for Ted Cruz this has been a problem, Trump inspires love or dread, Trump gets the coverage Trump dominates the media with his often outrageous statements and Cruz is the other guy. Ted Cruz however is more than just the guy who isn’t Trump, real quick here are 5 reasons Indiana, and all states following should get on board with Cruz.

1.       The Supreme Court. Ted Cruz argued nine cases before the Supreme Court with a good deal of success but more important than the wins and losses is what he supported which is a big indicator of the type of justice he would choose. From on the Issues, a great non [artisan sight

Stood for Americans' First Amendment rights against Democrats who sought to repeal our free speech rights.

Defended Hobby Lobby against Obamacare's contraception mandate.

Fought and won a landmark victory at the Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas; protected US sovereignty against 90 foreign nations and the president to ensure the US is not subject to rulings of the "World Court."

Led the way to preserve the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Successfully defended the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, winning a 5-4 landmark decision.

Successfully defended the Texas schools' moment of silence law in federal district court.

Galvanized national support for Houston pastors who had been subpoenaed by the City of Houston and forced to turn in their sermons. . This article ties in brilliantly and deserves a read: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

2.       The constitution: Cruz wants to keep the power of government limited to the enumerated powers of the constitution. For a hundred years government has been expanding sometime slowly sometimes like lightening, but with only a few respites (the Coolidge and Reagan administrations) it has grown and expanded beyond its intents. The temptation is to use the expansive government for our desires rather than take its power away but we must fight this if we are to preserve liberty

3.       Guns: . The Second Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice," Cruz has said, per the New York Times. "It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny--for the protection of liberty." Cruz gets it and is the only remaining candidate who hasn’t or doesn’t support various gun bans.

4.       Consistency. There is a difference between principle and pragmatism. Cruz, though at times pragmatic starts at a point of principle that is the basis of his views while we as conservatives may differ on the best way to apply those principles it is the principles that unite us. Cruz shares those basic principles, or to quote the great man himself “on these principles there will be no compromise”. It is hard for  other nations to deal with us since we change presidents and policy every four to eight years. Following the last 8 years consistency would be a godsend to our allies.

5.       Life. I have long believed that life is the number one concern of our country, and only one remaining candidate has been a consistent defender of life.

In the end no other candidate on either ticket supports the principles of conservatism  and polls and propaganda be damned conservatives in Indiana the country needs you

Keep on the firing line

Terrorism: No Biggie

Last time we looked at the Obama administration’s five foreign policy rule and examined in some detail the first three: Love of despots, undermining of freedom advocates (nearly 500 political dissidents were jailed in Cuba while he was laughing it up with Rual Castro), blame America for all the problems in the world, this time we’ll look at the last two: terrorism is no big deal and his high tolerance for the suffering of others.  The callousness of Obama is beyond belief. Not since the 1930’s has such a dangerous movement as Islamic extremism risen in the world and Obama is either sympathetic to or at least complacent against it.  Who is Obama most supportive of in the Middle East, Israel or Iran? I can come to no conclusion other than the Iran deal is Obama’s attempt to have a nuclear power in the region to counter balance Israel, the way I suspect he believes the Soviet Union was needed to counter the United States.

Donald Trump considers the Iran deal bad but believes with his special brand of negotiating abilities he can make it work.

Ted Cruz would throw it in the garbage can. Remember the maligned letter Senate Republicans sent to Iran stipulating that any deal was between the Obama administration and the Iranian President not a binding treaty on the US.

The rise of ISIS is the most damning legacy of the Obama administration included below is the entire interview where Obama called them the JV team. The rape torture plunder and murder, that ISIS has wrought rose up from the anarchy of Syria spread into Libya after Obama/Clinton removed the despicable but controlled and manageable Khadafy and turned that country into a post-apocalyptic waste land, then when he pulled our forces out of  Iraq he left that  country exposed to the ravages of the marauding horde that is Islamic Extremism.  The Obama line is that Bush is to blame but the reality is that when Obama took office Iraq was stable free though still a Republic in its infancy. All that was needed was a small (10-20 thousand) contingent of US troops and logistical support to make sure that during the unavoidable period of political discord that arises from starting a new nation especially when no democratic tradition exists. How stable was the US in the first decade of our independence? Obama will argue that Iraq rejected the status of forces agreement but if so why did Joe Biden return from the failure to secure an agreement by saying it was an honor to be entrusted to end the war?

Donald Trump echoes the blame Bush mentality and has recently stated that he will make ISIS disappear soon after he becomes President.

Cruz too says that invading Iraq was in error, one of the few disagreements I have with the man, but spells out a clear way forward on his website linked below.

Obama is not a friend of Liberty, he does not respect inalienable rights and he cares little for religious freedom and for eight years has supported our enemies empowered the forces opposed to freedom and undermined our allies. What to do about it?

Donald Trump basically says that because he is Donald Trump he can make the words work. He wishes to redefine NATO and back out of our role as defender of liberty in the world. While a prudent policy of limiting our involvement is essential the absence of the US as a leader creates a vacuum that must be filled. No other nation has the power to fill that vacuum with liberty; it will be filled with Sharia, or communism or other despotism if we back off. Yesterday Donald Trump gave his definitive foreign policy speech but what does it mean? You can count on anything Trump says today to be different tomorrow. He will betray any ally that he has just like he betrayed the Bible belt Christians who voted for him on the false impression that he was pro-life. A betrayer betrays and Trump is a proven betrayer.

Our allies need a President that can be trusted, who has a principled approach to foreign policy. One who can easily see the difference between good and evil.  Who is not neutral concerning Israel and Palestinians, one who understands that religious freedom must be the number one principle promoted.

Our enemies need to fear us, our friends need to trust us. The number one recruitment tool for ISIS is the perception they are winning, the best way to stop their recruitment is not to shut down the internet as Trump suggests it is to defeat them.  Ted Cruz is the candidate who gives us the chance to restore the respect of the world both to America and to the office of the Presidency, at least as I see it.  

 Obama critics often accuse conservatives of taking Obama’s quotes out of context, I find the context even more infuriating.  Like in this story that begins with the question while you were on vacation:

From a New Yorker profile interviewer David Remmick.

Remnick:  "You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent."

Obama:  "Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian."

Remnick: "But that JV team just took over Fallujah."

Obama:  "I understand.  But when you say took over Fallujah –"

Remnick:  "And I don’t know for how long."

Obama:  "But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into."

Another quote:

I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet.

Remember how the president went golfing after a brief statement about the beheading of American journalist James Foley, or the pathetic hashtag bring back our girls campaign? Obama is very slow to be moved to action over the greatest series of human rights atrocities in the modern world but he gets deeply concerned over Mississippi and North Carolina trying to defend the first amendment rights of its own citizens. Obama is a waste who has weakened our military and made the world an far more dangerous and unstable place then just 7 short years ago.

One of two men will likely be the next republican candidate to fix the mess Obama will leave their positions on terror and defense:

Trump: As with all things one policy is hard to pinpoint from Trump. Just as Crux does Trump speaks to bombing ISIS and building up the military there the coherency of his policy ends. He wants to kill terrorist’s families except he doesn’t he suggests closing of the internet to terrorists but doesn’t say how to do so, or under what conditions. He bounces around on banning Muslim immigration from his website: Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

Does this include Muslims who aid our forces in the fight against terror? Just wondering. While better vetting of immigrants is only logical, Trump’s call for a national registry of Muslims was one Rooseveltian step he has since walked back.  Trump is king of the soundbite but passed that he has little of a coherent nature.

Cruz: from his website

The United States of America is the exceptional nation, the nation other countries aspire to be like. We should stand as a shining beacon of what free people enjoying a free market and system of government can achieve. But while our intentions towards the rest of the world are peaceful, that does not mean we have no enemies, and the fact of the matter is our enemies are on the march.

Two terms of the disastrous Obama-Clinton foreign policy have had one useful effect: we now know what the world starts to look like without America. The next president will have to start on day one rebuilding what they have tried to tear down. A truly conservative foreign policy would have three simple principles:

To preserve our country we need to exert leadership on the global stage, not withdraw from it.

We need to fiercely defend our allies and interests.

And we need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America.  Because what is best for America is best for the world.

In order to restore America’s safety and security, we must rebuild our military. If you think defending the country is expensive, try not defending it. We must rebuild our military in a way that will secure our children without bankrupting them.

ISIS seeks to destroy our very way of life. We must defeat them. That starts by calling the enemy by its name – radical Islamic terrorism – and securing the border. Border security is national security.

We cannot recede from our leadership in the world. If we withdraw from the Middle East, the radical jihadists will not be content to stay there—they are going to attack our allies in the region and beyond. And they are on the lookout for every opportunity to attack us here at home.

On day one, a President Cruz will immediately repeal every word of President Obama’s dangerous Iran deal and will prioritize American national security interests in every instance.

Authored legislation urging the Secretary of State to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization.

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris, introduced the Terrorist Refugee Infiltration Prevention Act of 2015, immediately barring refugees to the United States from any country, such as Iraq or Syria that contains substantial territory controlled by a foreign terrorist organization.

Chaired a hearing for the Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts titled “Justice Forsaken: How the Federal Government Fails the American Victims of Iranian and Palestinian Terrorism.” This hearing focused on the federal government’s failure to support the American victims of Iranian and Palestinian terror in their search for justice.

Cruz record:

Introduced the IRGC Terrorist Designation Act, urging the U.S. Department of State to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization.

Sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner laying out a three-step approach to stop the flow of funds to the Iranian regime according to the terms of Corker-Cardin, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

Introduced a resolution defining the start of Congress’ 60-day review period and detailing flaws within the submittal of the agreement.

Sent Obama a letter and declared his intention to hold reauthorizing legislation and block all State Department nominees unless Obama provides written assurance that he will block the UN resolution to approve the Iran deal until congressional review has run its course.

Has twice introduced the Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act to reinstate, impose, and expand Iran sanctions and stop failed negotiations until Iran meets certain preconditions.

Has twice introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which seeks to prevent terrorists who join ISIS or other terrorist groups from re-entering the country and to make clear that citizens who collaborate with terrorists have forfeited their right to US citizenship.

Introduced legislation to prevent terrorists from entering the US as UN ambassadors, which Iran had attempted by nominating Hamid Aboutalebi. It passed Congress unanimously and President Obama signed it into law.

Opposed arming Syrian rebels, while supporting securing Syrian chemical weapons.

Introduced legislation to ensure that the victims of Fort Hood were eligible to receive the Purple Heart. The acts of Nidal Hasan were not random acts of workplace violence — it was a clear act of radical Islamic terrorism on our own soil. The men and women who stood bravely in the midst of it deserve to be rightly honored, and Cruz’s measure ensured that were.

Successfully amended the Military Construction and Veterans’ Affairs Appropriations bill to require the VA Secretary to provide Congress with a plan to address the long wait times for veterans seeking health care at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Sponsored the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act to make it easier for senior executives at the VA to be terminated for negligence, mismanagement, and other performance failures.

On behalf of three million veterans, Cruz successfully defended the crosses at the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial.

For a detailed plan on rebuilding the military: https://www.tedcruz.org/american-resolve/

Cruz’s views are concise and consistent and easy to find, Trump’s change so frequently that its hard to follow, which we will look at more soon.

Keep on the firing line

Cruz Cuba Trump and the Tango. Pt 1

Nero fiddles while Rome burns, perhaps not 100% historically accurate but it is a by word for heartless and callous behavior from a leader in a time of crisis. Perhaps the phrase needs an update, Obama tangoed as Brussels burned.  Perhaps nothing in the long Obama nightmare shows the ineptitude of the Obama foreign policy as did his recent foray into Cuba/central America. He loves despots, he undermines freedom advocates, he blames America for the entire world’s problems, terrorism isn’t a big deal and he has a very high tolerance for the suffering of others.  Let’s look at President Obama’s foreign policy and how the two remaining Republican hopefuls react.

Policy point 1, Love of despots:

President Obama once said “I’m not a dictator,” but I have no doubt he wishes he could be. He has cultivated positive relations with such dictators as Rual Castro, yet alienates traditional allies such as Israel and England time and again. While his embracing of Castro is telling his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is damning. He actively supported one of the worst extremist groups rise to power then openly condemned their removal. His support of a nuclear deal that will lead to Iranian nuclear weapons though is the worst example.   Iran already a threat to the world through its support of terror would become the greatest threat to our firmest ally in the Middle East, Israel.  

Cruz from his campaign website: Two terms of the disastrous Obama-Clinton foreign policy have had one useful effect: we now know what the world starts to look like without America. The next president will have to start on day one rebuilding what they have tried to tear down. A truly conservative foreign policy would have three simple principles:

To preserve our country we need to exert leadership on the global stage, not withdraw from it.

We need to fiercely defend our allies and interests.

And we need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America.  Because what is best for America is best for the world.

On day one, a President Cruz will immediately repeal every word of President Obama’s dangerous Iran deal and will prioritize American national security interests in every instance.

Trump from his nothing on foreign policy except renegotiating deals with China, and bombing Isis he has however made it clear that he thinks the Iran deal is a poor one but prefers to fix it rather than abandon it: “[that] ... Because I’m a deal person. And when I make deals ... I will police that deal. You know, I’ve taken over some bad contracts. I buy contracts where people screwed up, and they have bad contracts. But I’m really good at looking at a contract and finding things within a contract that, even if they’re bad, I would police that contract so tough that they don’t have a chance. ... And the problem is, by the time I got in there, they will have already received the $150 billion.”

Point #2 Undermines freedom’s advocates:

Pres. Obama said, “What I've said to the Cuban government is, if . . . we're seeing some progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of ordinary Cubans, I'd love to use a visit as a way of highlighting that progress, " What Obama did was to go to Cuba and offer Cuba millions in American investment without one single concession on human rights, and all the evidence proving that the oppression of the Cuban people worsening. This is a pattern that began early while chaos was spreading over the middle east Obama ignored the democracy movement in Iran that may have made overthrown one of the most evil and dangerous regimes in the modern history of the world.

Cruz reaction: “For decades, leftists and Hollywood liberals have made the pilgrimage to Cuba to pay homage to Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro,” Cruz said. “It’s very chic, it’s very chichi for leftists to celebrate vicious communist dictators.”

If elected president, Cruz vowed he would visit Cuba too, though under different circumstances.

“I cannot wait as president to visit Cuba,” he said. “But when I visit Cuba, it will be a free Cuba. It will be a Cuba without Raúl Castro, without Fidel Castro. And I can’t wait to celebrate with the people of Cuba 90 miles off America’s shore.”

Trump was more concerned about the personal insult payed the pres. By Castro Wow, President Obama just landed in Cuba, a big deal, and Raul Castro wasn't even there to greet him. He greeted Pope and others. No respect

Point # 3 Blaming America:

Many many quotes from Obama imply or directly say, he blames the US for the world’s prblems but with the emphasis on Cuba I’ll pull just one line from that speech: I know these issues are sensitive, especially coming from an American President.  Before 1959, some Americans saw Cuba as something to exploit, ignored poverty, enabled corruption.  And since 1959, we’ve been shadow-boxers in this battle of geopolitics and personalities.  I know the history, but I refuse to be trapped by it. I’ve made it clear that the United States has neither the capacity, nor the intention to impose change on Cuba.  What changes come will depend upon the Cuban people.  We will not impose our political or economic system on you.“

How do you impose freedom? How do you force people into self-determination, compel people to exercise free markets?  This has been a recurring theme in liberalism, at its core is the belief that America is nothing special, that the great experiment in freedom is the moral equivalent of a great experiment in Marxism or Maoism or Sharia. In the end Obama sees an equivalency between American governance and Communist oppression, and always looking back Obama sees the hand of America as the root cause of the issues not the communist oppressors who lied to gain American support than seized power and instituted their totalitarian regime.

A Cruz quote directed at Russia: “Autocrats have reason to fear when Americans focus on our principles, and focus on exceptionalism, because it’s been American exceptionalism that stood up to the Nazis, stopped the murder from the Nazis And it was American exceptionalism that stood up to the Soviet Union and freed hundreds of millions from behind the Iron Curtin.  So Putin is right to be concerned about American exceptionalism.”

Trump: “we’re not a strong country anymore. We will have so much winning if I get elected, that you may get bored with winning.”

Time and space fail but next time we’ll look at the last two points, since the issue of terrorism deserves its own post.

Until then, keep on the firing line!