Courage to Conserve Our Constitution

We’re in waiting mode. We might as well use this time for some pondering.

The next big date certain is January 6^th—well, actually, we’re also looking at January 5^th, which is the runoff election date for Georgia, where two senate races could determine the Senate majority. But on January 6^th, the Electoral College votes are opened, read, and counted. We’re used to thinking about that as a formality with an automatic outcome. But that has only been true for 75% of US presidential elections; the other 25% have been—otherwise. This one is going to be otherwise.

Seven states have sent two dueling slates of electors. How that is handled is, well, too complicated to predict. In a bit we’ll talk about the possibilities. But first I want to talk about a particular question—about what it is to be conservative.

Vice President Mike Pence
image found here

 

Conservatism Outside and Inside the Political Sphere

There’s an excellent article from Ted Noel at American Thinker, in which he’s going through some of the possibilities, and making a striking recommendation that we’ll talk about.  After he has laid out the situation, and just before offering a script for the Vice President to follow on January 6^th, he says this:

This leaves V.P. Pence with a dilemma. He is a gentleman who regards our governmental traditions with a degree of reverence, so he will be reluctant to take any bold action. But as an honorable man, faced with massive illegality, he must act to protect the law. 

When we talk about conservatism, outside of politics, it might be summarized as “a degree of reverence for traditions.” Conservatives are slow to make changes for the sake of change; they must know that the change will indeed be an improvement over the tried and true or even marginally successful but comfortable. Conservatives don’t throw babies out with bathwater. Again, speaking outside of politics, this may get conservatives the reputation of being stodgy, standing in the way of progress, or just being no fun. But also, they’re reliable, organized, logical, and deep thinking. A society may need new fresh ideas, but it also absolutely needs these reliable, careful deep thinkers.

When we talk about conservatism in the political sphere, and we’re in America, we are talking about conserving the Constitution. That is our basic law. It’s not, as Barbossa says of the code in Pirates of the Caribbean, “more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” The Constitution isn’t a “living” document; it doesn’t change meaning based on who’s reading it or applying it on a given day. It doesn’t morph to meet societal whims. It isn’t intended to be “gray” or malleable. It is meant to stand firm as the law of the land.

That’s actually important. It might be going too far to say that voting was invented in America. But I think you can say that every country in the world that now chooses its leaders by vote rather than birthright does so because America set up a way for people to rule themselves. That means that even most of the tyrants of the world today hold fraudulent elections over which they control the outcome, so that they have a veneer of giving their people a choice.

 

What VP Pence Should Do

So what will VP Mike Pence do? Will his personal conservatism outweigh his political conservatism?

Earlier in his piece, Ted Noel phrases his January 6^th duties this way:

His task will be to fulfill his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. This is a high standard of performance, and V.P. Pence will have two choices.  He can roll over on "certified" electors, or he can uphold the law.

Noel is definitive on which Pence should do. I am also in favor of VP Pence protecting and defending the Constitution. I like Noel’s script for him. I’m not sure that is how things will play out. And, actually, no one is. Before we get into the complications, I’ll quote Noel one more time, on what is legally an election:

An election is a process of counting votes for candidates. Only valid, lawful votes may be counted. A valid lawful vote is:

•     Cast by an eligible, properly registered elector [voter] as prescribed by laws enacted by the state Legislature.

•     Cast in a timely manner, as prescribed by laws enacted by the state Legislature.

•     Cast in a proper form as prescribed by laws enacted by the state Legislature.

Any process that does not follow these rules is not an election.  Anything that proceeds from it cannot be regarded as having any lawful import.

Most commentators suggest that a process of collecting pieces of paper with marks on them is an election regardless of errors, omissions, and even deliberate malfeasance. This is a mistake. Imagine a golf tournament where every bad shot by one player gets a do-over, but the competing player has to follow USGA rules in detail. One player gets to drop freely out of hazards, but the other has to tackle every embedded ball as it lies. The result is a travesty.

The same thing applies to elections. If there are a handful of improper votes, we can suggest that there was in fact an election, perhaps tainted, but the election wasn't materially harmed. But when the people charged with managing the election decide to ignore the law, whatever process they supervise is not the process defined by the law. Therefore, it is not an election.

Noel says that the Vice President, as President of the Senate, has both the duty and supreme authority to determine whether to accept electors from a state. That is probably true. But it’s actually a difficult question. He leads us to articles he has referenced, written by Alexander Macris. Noel links to two. Macris himself links to an additional earlier one he wrote, plus a longish section of the US code in question. So, if you want to do enough reading to probably feel like an expert on the subject, here’s the list:

·         “It's for Mike Pence to Judge whether a Presidential Election Was Held at All” by Ted Noel, for American Thinker, Dec. 26, 2020. 

·         “If Chaos is a Ladder, America's Election Laws are an Elevator: Americans Don't Play by the Rules as Written and the Rules as Written Don't Make Any Sense” by Alexander Macris, Dec. 13, 2020. 

·         “Who Counts the Votes of the Presidential Electors?” by Alexander Macris, Dec. 7, 2020. 

·         “Can State Legislatures Appoint Presidential Electors? Yes they can, and don't let Lawrence Tribe persuade you otherwise” by Alexander Macris, Dec. 5, 2020. 

·         “State Legislatures Can’t Ignore the Popular Vote in Appointing Electors” by Lawrence Lessig and Jason Harrow for Lawfare, Nov. 6, 2020. 

·         3 USC 15: Counting Electoral Votes in Congress 

 

What the House and Senate Should Do

Another relatively likely scenario for January 6^th is that House and Senate members will object to particular electors, and then the bodies need to convene to discuss. The Ted Noel version says that won’t even be necessary with the VP plan. But, if the VP doesn’t toss out electors from states that shouldn’t have certified their electors, based on fraudulent elections, then the next step is for the protests of electors to happen.

Rep. Mo Brooks has announced his intention, and several dozen House members have announced their plans to join him. There must be at least one Senator to join in the protest. I suggested a letter to send them, in my December 22^nd post. 

LifeSite has a link where you have an easy way to contact your US Rep and both Senators with a message asking them to join in the protest of fraudulent electors. You can use LifeSite’s brief message or exchange it with one of your own.

 

Other News

Sidney Powell’s Report

Table of Contents page of Sidney Powell's Report
provided by Zenger News

Sidney Powell put out a 270-page document detailing election fraud, including evidence of overseas interference. The table of contents can give you an idea of what is contained. You can read the entire document here. 

The MSM narrative has been that there is no voter fraud, and there is rarely voter fraud, and there may have been some voter fraud but not enough to affect the outcome, and Sidney Powell has provided no evidence, and all the cases are being tossed out. And so forth. But the evidence is getting out there. What I began talking about in the days immediately after the election was, at that time, considered conspiracy theory; now it’s a collection of thousands of affidavits, videos, testimonies, and collected documents such as the Navarro Report, which is also included in this Sidney Powell report.

There is so much evidence of voter fraud that changed the outcomes in at least six states that anyone who says otherwise is a partisan liar or purposely ignorant. The real question now is what will be done about it. One thing is for certain: the American people cannot let this much fraud be shrugged off with a “We’ll just work harder to get out the vote next time.”

The opposition is now talking about the confusing procedures on January 6^th as an attempted coup by President Trump. Note that, whenever they accuse, it is because that is what they are doing. But there is some truth in the fact that a large segment of the American people will be upset either way. That’s why it’s important to show the fraud, so those who have been depending on MSM sources will come to realize that Biden was never elected, and to show support as people who actually voted for President Trump—which is a clear majority.

To that end, President Trump has invited supporters to come to the capitol on January 6^th for a peaceful protest. I think he needs to see that the people are behind him. Also, the legislators need to see that support, and there needs to be some visual display that even the MSM can’t hide or minimize.

I don’t know how big that gathering is going to be, but I have been seeing discussion on our Tea Party email list about people getting together to travel there for it. That’s about 1430 miles, 21 hours in a car. But there are people willing and excited to do that. (I’m not able to make the trip, but those who do, I hope you share a lot of photos of the historic day.)

 

Nashville Explosion

On Christmas day there was an RV that exploded in front of an AT&T facility in Nashville. There was an announcement ahead of time telling people to evacuate the area. So far it appears the only life lost was to the owner of the RV, a man named Anthony Quinn Warner. Motive is still unknown, although the man may have had issues with 5G. But the explosion did little damage to the building, and certainly not much to the 5G industry. It did temporarily take out communications in the surrounding area.

There are speculations. First was this one, on Facebook, saying it had to do with the audit of the Dominion voting machines. I’ve come across it from a couple of friends. One linked to a John Murphy, in Florida, a common enough name that I couldn’t identify him, so I’m not sure if it was initiated by him or simply passed along. Anyway, maybe. But there’s no corroborating info that any such machines were in the building and damaged. I’ll need to see more.

Last night Joshua Philipp went through the various possible motivations in his Crossroads Q&A.  He said at this point, early on, we don’t know enough, and we probably ought to be skeptical about any narratives coming out of the media. He offers pure analysis, just thinking through what is known, and suggests it is likely one of the following:

·         A crazy person who had something against AT&T, but wasn’t crazy enough to actually want to hurt anybody—which is kind of odd for an actual crazy person.

·         Somebody meant to destroy something at that facility, although it doesn’t look like it destroyed enough of the building to do that.

·         It was meant as a probe, to try to see what the protocols of reaction would be to an incident like that, shutting off communications, or destroying a communications facility—possibly ahead of a planned future incident.

So many things these days start out looking like conspiracy theories but turn out to be true that, who knows? It’s difficult to get to the truth. Nevertheless, we keep looking for truth, and trying to be wise and discerning in that search.

 

As for whatever is about to happen next week, I’m continuing to pray for our President to be guided, supported, and protected to do God’s will for our nation. And I’m praying for Vice President Pence, that he will have both wisdom and courage in the task before him. And I’m praying for members of Congress to have the fortitude to step forward and protect our nation against tyranny.

 

Additional Sources

Besides the above, you might want to watch/listen to the following additional sources:

·         X22Report.com  This website contains the originals, in audio and video versions. Some of these, particularly Ep. 2350, I’ve referenced before, in its YouTube form. It was the channel PinkAudioX, but this week it is GreenAudioX. Depending on format, or versions, the titles change. But there have been several the last couple of days, in each of which he goes over the Ted Noel piece in American Thinker, among other news:

o   “Jan 6th Comes into Focus, Patriots Prepare To Make Their Move” Ep. 2364, Dec. 28, 2020. 

o   “Patriots at the Ready” GREENAudioX Ep#2363B, Dec. 28, 2020.    He quotes the Ted Noel piece. He predicts that the Durham report with be actual indictments.

o   “Countermeasures in Place” GREENAudioX Ep#2363F, Dec. 28, 2020 (original Dec. 27).  He quotes Ted Noel piece, mentions Sidney Powell’s 270-page document.

o   “States Panic, Impossible to Clean” GREENAudioX Ep#2350F, Dec. 26, 2020. This is an older one, reposted as new.

·         “Ep. 41: Election Lawsuits; Lockdown Lawsuits; Coomer Defamation; Pardon Power & MORE!” Viva & Barnes, Dec. 27, 2020. 

·         “The FULL Snowden Interview” John Stossel, Dec. 21, 2020. 

 

Dream Nation

If I were to found a nation from scratch, what would it be like? It would look a great deal like the US Constitution. It would base government on the underlying principle that rights come from God. People will try to take away those rights, and they must be prevented. Government serves that limited purpose. Government should be used to protect our lives, liberty, and property—and the free choice of work to acquire property.

This new nation would have to be a break-off or restart of something existing, since the world is pretty much fully named and occupied now. The words declaring this new nation might include something very much like

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

And then they would go on to describe why there should be this new government in place of the old:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There might follow a list of the grievances—the laws broken by the previous government. And after that list of government’s crimes against the people, the new nation would declare its independence. The signers would invoke their “Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence,” and they would “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

This is how it was done 240 years ago, at the birth of the United States of America. Appeals to the law that was supposed to guarantee their natural rights had been underway for decades. It appeared every avenue of making things right was exhausted. At the time of the Declaration, war was underway, and continued for several more years. Only Divine Providence could have led to the miraculous victory. Eventually the fledgling nation grew and prospered, and the mother country stopped trying to re-wrest control.

Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of
Independence was signed in 1836
photo from Wikipedia

Similarly, in 1836, a section of Mexico listed grievances, and after exhaustive efforts to redress wrongs by appealing to the constitutional law of the nation were attempted and rebuked by the illegitimate dictator, independence was declared. So the Republic of Texas declared independence. A war was already underway, and continued. But with miraculous help from Divine Providence, the dictator-president was defeated in a brief battle at San Jacinto, to the east of present-day Houston.

The fledgling nation struggled, and before many years asked to become one of the United States of America. And has prospered considerably since—far beyond anything imagined by the mother country. As a single state within the US, it is the twelfth largest economy in the world.

So, there’s a pattern. A constitution is in place, promising the people protection of their God-given rights. Then tyrants get power and ignore the law. The free people then try to assert their rights through legal appeals, through reason, through common sense. And their appeals are ignored. Then the people—enough of them—come to see that a complete break is necessary, so that they can form a new nation that doesn’t allow government tyranny.

The tyrant nation doesn’t want to let them go peacefully and attempts to force submission. But, God willing, the free people win their independence.

If the tyrant nation didn’t try get the people to submit through brutal force, the war part of becoming independent would be eliminated.

So, if I were to have what I wanted, it would be to jettison the tyrants from the government—and any portions of the country where the voice of the people prefers the tyrants—and return to the Constitutional laws.

If that is not possible—as it was not with either mother country England for the original thirteen colonies, nor with mother country Mexico for Texas—then there would need to be a declaration of independence.

I am speaking hypothetically only. I am in favor of abiding by the US Constitution, and I don’t think we have yet done everything possible to exhaust the possibility of restoring the Constitution and jettisoning the tyrants.

But, while the United States is considered “indivisible,” that is only while the government guarantees “liberty and justice for all.” Our list of grievances is already as long and serious as was the founders’.

I am where the US founders were between 1760 and 1776, while John Adams was stationed in England making appeals. And I am where Stephen F. Austin was in 1830-1835, before he came out of a dungeon where he was imprisoned for asking that the constitution be followed.

So, hypothetically speaking, since I live in Texas, let’s suppose all avenues of Constitutional restoration have been exhausted. And Texas declares independence from the post-Constitutional Socialist States of America. Let’s further suppose that, because of close proximity to the other states, and the long years of people moving in and out among states, that the Socialist States of America would hesitate to declare war on Texas, but would allow a peaceful secession.

Other states could join—maybe Oklahoma, which is adjacent, but maybe also Utah, which wouldn’t be contiguous, but might prefer joining Texas rather than asserting its independence while surrounded by the Socialist States. There may be others.

So, we have this new nation, formed the way other freedom seekers have formed nations (except peacefully). And now we need to set up the laws.

I think the abandoned US Constitution is an excellent starting point. We would need to form a Constitutional Republic: representative government, by the voice of the people, but with guarantees against majority—or minority—tyranny.

Let’s keep most of it, and then add what we need to clarify and to maintain. We keep power divided into three branches of government. But we would spell out that all national laws must be duly legislated by the bicameral legislative branch and none else. Let’s add that every piece of legislation must deal with a single issue, and that it must identify the power in the Constitution granting authority for that duty.

The executive branch would have no power to issue any such thing as an edict, nor any executive order other than to indicate to workers the procedures for executing the legislated laws. Executive regulatory agencies, which currently have lawmaking, judicial, and punishment self-appointed duties would be entirely eliminated.

As now, the third branch would be the judiciary, which deals with judging according to the law—and has the bonus obligation of identifying whether a duly legislated law is legal according to the ultimate law, the Constitution. But let’s add that a two-thirds majority of the legislative branch could overrule the judiciary. (I’ve heard that suggestion for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution.) This would prevent the judiciary from asserting illicit lawmaking authority.

We should make it both easier and probable for the legislative branch to impeach (remove from office) the president or vice-president either for attempts at unconstitutional acts or for crimes and corruption. And we could add that the people could also call for impeachment or recall (in a way similar to an Article V convention), if they see that the legislative branch isn’t responding to their appeals.

In addition, the legislative branch—as well as the people—could impeach a justice for failure to abide by the Constitution, or for crimes and corruption.

All would have term limits. The president would have no more than two terms (eight years). Senators would have no more than two terms (twelve years). Representatives would have no more than six terms (twelve years). Justices would have no more than sixteen years. (Length of terms might be negotiable; but this is my daydream, so I get to say.)

We would keep the Bill of Rights—maybe clarifying where courts have tried to interfere with our God-given rights.

Religion would be encouraged, in public and private life. No specific religion or sect would be given preferential treatment by government. But government could do nothing to hinder the free expression—public and private—of religion and religious people. Public prayer would be common at civic gatherings. Such prayers can be done according to the religion of the one praying, and those of differing religions would be expected to be respectful—as others would be to them at other opportunities.

We would also be free to speak opinions—even unpopular opinions—without fear of prosecution. Limits would include defamation, libel, slander, provoking violence, pornography and lewdness. But would not include civil discourse. And, of course, there would be no laws preventing others from saying things a person or group disagrees with, thereby “offending” them.

People clearly have not given up the right to defend themselves, just because they have hired a police force to help protect them. Only criminals would be prevented from owning and using firearms for protection, hunting, sport, or whatever use they see fit.

Families must be protected as the basic unit of society. Marriage would be defined as it has for millennia, as a man and a woman. Other definition powers would be retained locally. Preference would be given to married husband and wife. Other family forms, while permitted, do not expect government or public approval. Parents have the right and responsibility to see to the care, education, and upbringing of their children. Only when parents drastically fail would the law step in to protect the child.

Any power not enumerated in the Constitution would not be granted to the federal government, but would be held by local jurisdictions or the individual people. The local jurisdictions (states, provinces, or whatever they are called in this new nation) would decide when to assert their rights—regardless of what a Supreme Court says. The final arbiter should be the people, not a national government-appointed judiciary, which clearly has a conflict of interest in such cases.

Government’s only economic powers would include standardizing weights and measures, standardizing money, maintaining federal infrastructure, and preventing monopolies. A flat tax of no more than 10% could be imposed more maintaining government purposes of border protection, sovereignty duties, and enumerated government purposes. With government limited to its enumerated powers, there should be little difficulty in maintaining a balanced budget and avoiding debt—but rather than trust on this, the laws should make it mandatory (with possible temporary exceptions, such as natural disasters and attacks on the nation’s soil).

The new nation would secure its borders, and have an orderly, fair, and consistent immigration and naturalization policy.

The national government would refrain from interfering where it is not granted powers, such as in education, charity, environmental regulation, and subsidizing particular industries or market sectors.

We need informed voters committed to maintaining the Constitution. While there should be no financial or racial test for voters, I’m willing to believe we could come up with a test that is part of voter registration—something that proves the voter understands the basic form of government, the limits of government, and who one’s current national elected officials are. And we could have candidates sign an oath showing their understanding of and dedication to the Constitution—with punishments including possibly prison and fines for breaking this oath.

What I dream about is a country well up into the northern hemisphere of the Spherical Model—where we have freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Our original founders did everything right—except prevent us from ignoring the law and slipping southward. But that is not a problem with their system; that is a problem with the people.

So let's start with civilizing people, so that they naturally want--and work for--freedom and prosperity. 

Establishment and Grassroots

Sometimes there are words we assume we understand, but that aren’t clearly or easily defined. Establishment and grassroots are two of these. They are supposedly opposite, but lately establishment has been used as an epithet to silence disagreement from elsewhere in the grassroots, which is the exact opposite of what grassroots is about. So, let’s define and examine for clarity.

The term Establishment identifies an amorphous controlling elite. Lately this refers to those in the Republican Party, particularly in Washington, DC, who have a different agenda than the rank-and-file Republican citizen. Assumed to belong are the party leadership and leadership in the US Congress and Senate. Sometimes Paul Ryan, recently chosen to replace John Boehner as House Majority Leader, is included, and sometimes he’s exempted. He was chosen because he was acceptable to both the establishment and the non-establishment.

But it can’t be that being in a particular position automatically makes someone establishment. That would require, instead, some beliefs and attitudes in addition to position. Otherwise it would be pointless to try to elect people who share grassroots ideas into positions of leadership.

So, for our purposes, maybe we need to identify the beliefs and attitudes. There’s not an overriding authority, so this is from my observations.

The GOP Establishment consists of House and Senate members, sometimes including leadership, who focus on party power more than on party purpose—plus some lobbyists, crony capitalists, and various opinion makers who share an agenda with the rest of the establishment. Sometimes the difference in beliefs is as slight as wanting to go the right direction, but wanting to do it slowly and incrementally rather than suddenly. In other words, change slowly rather than radically.

But sometimes it’s more a matter of wanting to keep the status quo—quite a lot of power in Washington, DC, regardless of authority from the Constitution. And sometimes it’s a matter of going along with Democrat ideas because the media makes it seem that is what the public wants, so, to maintain power, going that direction but slower than the Democrats go there.

Staying where we are or going further the wrong direction are not acceptable to the grassroots.

Came across this on Facebook;
can't locate origin, but found here

Grassroots ideas, or political movements or campaigns, start and grow from the local community. This includes the grassroots of a party. I need to repeat that: the grassroots include ideas, movements, and campaigns within a party. The definition includes where the movement comes from: from local people in communities. They share the idea—or word about a candidate—with friends. This could look like local clubs and meetings, like my local Tea Party, where we hear from candidates and speakers, plus share ideas with each other. Or it could be what we do at precinct meetings, when we elect delegates for the next level up and propose ideas that we’d like to have included in the party platform. It might also include sharing our opinions on social media, or going around to people in our precinct to get them educated and registered to vote.

Grassroots ideas tend to come from people dissatisfied with the status quo. So they’re likely to disagree with any establishment in the “maintain our own power” camp of keeping the status quo.

Grassroots in the Republican Party is conservative in ways outside the status quo box. The Grassroots want smaller government—like you’d get if you actually followed the Constitution. Grassroots want lower taxes and less government spending. And less regulation interfering with innovation and entrepreneurship. Or interference with personal beliefs and opinions—like those listed in the First Amendment and the other Bill of Rights amendments.

It’s possible for grassroots movements to be extreme. Most associated with Democrats are. But it is not extreme to value the basic law of our country—the Constitution.

Grassroots tend to be made up of people committed to their communities, and to taking action to make things better. So, at the local level—precinct chairs, for example—you’re likely to find conservative grassroots ideas being shared around.

At least that has been my experience everywhere I’ve been involved. I started going to precinct conventions (by another name in a different state) as soon as I was old enough to vote. I first became a delegate to a county convention in 1984. Then we lived briefly in a couple of states where I never figured out how to get involved. Then, in yet another state, Mr. Spherical Model became a precinct chair. Both of us were delegates at the county convention. He went to the state convention several times. In Texas I started attending precinct conventions—and district and state conventions—as soon as I figured out how. And now I’m a precinct chair.

So I’m involved in my party. And I have been for decades. When the Tea Party showed up in 2010, I started attending, to make connections and to educate myself as a voter. But it has turned out that I also get to express my opinions quite a lot. During the past three legislative sessions I’ve led a group of us in following legislation and expressing our opinions to Texas lawmakers as citizen lobbyists.

Not all Tea Party people have been involved as long as I have. Some just woke up after Obama’s election and imposition of atrocities like Obamacare. And we have a range of opinions, although I’d say they’re nearly all in the Republican-to-Libertarian range, with not much (if any) overlap with the Democrat-to-Socialist range.

But the reason for my post today comes from a misunderstanding—or misrepresentation being exploited—by some newer to politics who think anyone involved with parties is corrupt establishment.

Some of this misrepresentation comes directly from the Trump campaign, which might indicate whether it’s actually grassroots or not. But they’re trying to convince the relatively new “activist” followers of Trump that no one who disagrees can be trusted.

About a contested convention, which happens if no candidate gets over 50% of the total delegates before the convention, there are no “brokers,” or establishment powers who get to override all those delegates and the voters who sent them to the convention.

On the first ballot, the delegates from most states are required to vote for the candidate they’re assigned to as a result of primary voting. Some states require the delegate to remain with that candidate for more than one ballot.

But when no candidate wins a majority of delegates on the first ballot, many—probably most—are free to vote their personal choice on the next ballot. And the next. Until a candidate wins a majority. There’s no stealing involved. The delegate was elected because of his/her leanings. Elected by delegates at lower levels, reaching to the most local grassroots.

Of the remaining candidates, longtime grassroots Republicans are much more likely to choose Ted Cruz, because he is a Constitutional conservative. He has reached out to those delegates and their grassroots support—in every state—and has given them his message and asked for their vote. And he has worked to find like-minded grassroots workers to run to become delegates.

It’s not a game. But it is a process. And he has shown respect for the grassroots through this process. Whereas Donald Trump has carried out a mostly-free-media top-down campaign with little attention offered to grassroots politics.

It wouldn’t matter whether Washington insiders actually wanted Trump to be their candidate; if a majority of the delegates do not want him (and he hasn’t won a majority coming in to the convention), he doesn’t get to be the nominee.

It is a grassroots decision.

It’s informative that some of those who are just recently awake to the dire condition of the country, who haven’t been participating in the grassroots for very long, might be skeptical and cynical about everyone and everything that disagrees with them.

But people involved for quite a while—people who are familiar with the Constitution, and are fully engaged in searching for leaders committed to lower taxes, less government interference in our lives, and protection of our God-given rights—are not inclined to support a candidate who blusters about some of those things but has no coherent plan to get us there. And no record of believing in the things that will get us there. And lacking the character that would show any actual change of heart.

In summary, I’ve been involved a long time—at the grassroots level only. I do not support Trump, specifically because I am a grassroots conservative who loves the Constitution. Calling people like me establishment because I have participated with the party and do not support Trump is ignorant both of the process of growing ideas, and of the strength of the grassroots desire to return to the Constitution.

And I support Ted Cruz because I am a grassroots conservative who loves the Constitution. We grassroots have been praying and watching for such a consistent Constitutional conservative for lifetimes.

I know and trust the grassroots around me here in Texas. We’re somewhat dependent on the grassroots elsewhere. But I have watched Ted Cruz reach out to others like me, and others respond to him as I have. So now it’s time to spread that word in our own grassroots communities. And then trust that what needs to happen for the sake of our beloved country will happen.

The Matchup

I stayed up and watched the Republican presidential debate Thursday night. We’re only a couple more weeks away from the first primary (Iowa, followed by New Hampshire). Texas early voting starts in a month, and our primary day is March 1^st. So it may be time to settle down and make an endorsement.

I’m for Ted Cruz. I’ve been for Ted Cruz since more than a year before he announced his campaign. I voted for him in the straw poll at the 2014 state GOP convention, and picked up a button, just in case. And the promises he has kept as our senator from Texas have kept me in his camp.

So the debates are of interest to me, not to convince me who to vote for, but for me to see what is being said, and what the other candidates are like. (Transcript available here.)

I have also been strongly against Donald Trump since he announced. I think he is an embarrassment to conservatives—because he isn’t one. And he isn’t much of an improvement over the other narcissist authoritarian/dictator/tyrant we’ve been suffering from for the past seven years—the candidate Trump voted for, back just a few years ago. I’m guessing he also voted for Hillary as senator from New York, since that happened during the time he was still calling himself a Democrat.

So, you can expect my view of the debate to be colored by my feelings. However, because I know that, I’m trying to avoid knee-jerk reactions and get a more accurate view of what’s really happening.

What I witnessed was apparently not the same debate the commentators were watching. Immediately afterward they couldn’t say strongly enough how they thought Trump had been brilliant and was the clear winner. That is exactly the opposite of what I saw happen.

Before I talk about Trump and Cruz, let me mention the others—all of whom appeared reasonable and appealing. In another year, any of them might seem quite electable. Maybe even John Kasich, who hasn’t ever been impressive but is, as last night, well-spoken and competent sounding. And while Jeb Bush is on my list of absolutely not getting my vote—because his view on Common Core reveals he doesn’t understand the Constitutional limits of government, nor government’s basic limited role—he also appears reasonable and conservative.

I am a Christie fan. I find him entertaining and appealing. When he says conservative things, he says them with color and clarity that delight me. I feel confident in his economic conservatism, his grasp of foreign affairs, and his willingness to stand up against the tremendous liberal push in his own state of New Jersey. However, on social issues I have my doubts. So I would rather look at him somewhere in the future.

I also like Marco Rubio. People keep talking about him as the youthful optimist, which I find puzzling. He is youthful. But he counters that by sounding very serious—always. He’s clear. He’s articulate. He gives you the sense that he understands the issues clearly and can explain and persuade with some ease. The main drawback is his Gang of 8 participation in an attempt to do “comprehensive” immigration reform, which is translated as “path to citizenship for illegal aliens.”

There is, of course, a need for real comprehensive reform—an easier, fairer process. Something much less Vogon-like. But that can’t be accomplished until the borders are secure. Those of us with some experience recognize that the federal government cannot be trusted on this. They have had funding provided for a border fence, and they failed to use the money and build it. This administration has gone out of its way to allow in illegals and possible terrorists pretending to by refugees—without an appropriate vetting—while keep the process as painful as ever for law-abiding potential immigrants.

I’m guessing Rubio learned that truth the hard way. I’m willing to forgive him for that one thing, pending future evidence that he now knows better.

However, his attacks on Ted Cruz are losing me. This may be some acceptable part of campaigning. I can roll my eyes and ignore it from some PAC. But right there before our eyes, coming from Rubio himself, it was unseemly. And untrue. Attempts to characterize Cruz as inconsistent and dishonest are going to fail, because Cruz is about the most consistent elected official any of us have ever encountered. Plus, his specialty is the law, particularly the Constitution, which is the basis of our law. He’s scrupulously law-abiding. If your campaign depends on painting Cruz as something other than he is, maybe you need to be self-aware enough to realize you don’t measure up.

That said, if the nominee were Rubio, while he wouldn’t be my first choice, I believe I could support him. He would take us in the right direction.

Now, about the two main characters.

Trump appeared petty, vindictive, proud, and uninformed. As usual. The target this time was clearly Ted Cruz. The particular attack that Trump trumped up (pun intended) was the birther issue. It came ahead of the debate, so Cruz was ready for it.

Do you really think one of the best Constitutional scholars ever to run for president would not know whether or not he is a natural-born citizen? He is, of course. He was born to a native American mother; his father was a refugee from Cuba who was not planning to return to Cuba. While Canada may be one country that would allow Cruz to consider himself to be a native Canadian, if he had stayed there from birth onward—unlike most countries—he was his mother’s son, an American.

When they moved back to the US, when Cruz was still a preschooler, there was no need to apply for naturalization; he was already a US citizen. To assume that his parents could return to the US with him, where he would live the rest of his life, and raise him as a Canadian instead of an American is absurd. As the law in practice has said repeatedly. Words with the nat root refer to birth: nature, native, nativity, natal. He was born a native American citizen, not naturalized (made native through a legal process) later.

Cruz pointed out that in September Trump had been asked the question about Cruz’s eligibility, and he had said he had asked his lawyers and there was no question about Cruz’s eligibility. As Cruz said, “Since September the Constitution hasn’t changed, but the poll numbers have.”

What had changed was the threat in the polls from Cruz. Trump insisted temporarily that his only thought was the Republican party, because there will be a legal challenge to Cruz’s eligibility. But eventually he admitted that he brings it up now, because Cruz is doing better.

In other words, he lied about it not being an issue in September because he didn’t think Cruz was important enough. Or he’s lying about it now, because Cruz is a threat.

The exchange was highly entertaining. Cruz verified that the main Trump’s legal expert was a far-left partisan—so no wonder Hillary, et al., are jumping on with Trump’s claim. Some of the experts twist the “natural-born citizen” law to the point that they insist a presidential candidate must have not only been born on American soil, but must have both parents born on American soil. You should hear Cruz present this—about a minute in:

Trump’s response appears to me a combination of embarrassment and failure to understand what Cruz is saying. To view this and think Trump came off better is to fail to see.

That’s why the pundits’ response was so puzzling. To get a view of what actual Americans saw, it helps sometimes to watch Frank Luntz’s focus groups. Usually he asks for a raise of hands for the winner. This time it was so clear, he let them just say it. With one voice, they said “Cruz.” 

Another attack that was supposed to have thrown Cruz off the rails was his comment a few days ago abut Trump being a New Yorker, and we all know what New York values are. We do. But Trump took issue with that, as did a few newspeople who live and work in New York (Megyn Kelly was one). So that nonsubstative issue also came up at the debate. And Cruz said people outside Manhattan know what he means by New York values: not very many conservatives come out of Manhattan.

Trump countered with William Buckley. Yes, Buckley was conservative. But what was remarkable about him was his ability to be conservative and good humored while surrounded by unfriendly liberals. And he’s been dead for some years now. In a city of 8.4 million, Trump can only recite one person—one who is no longer living.

He might have mentioned Rudy Juliani, who was a very successful law-and-order mayor there, and a Republican. But he’s not a conservative either and would have only proved Cruz’s point.

New York conservatives aren’t completely unheard of. But they are rare. I saw a figure of voters in Manhattan (not the whole city, but representative for our purposes). Of registered voters, 82% were Democrat, and 12% were Republican.

Being Republican does not necessarily mean conservative, especially Constitutional conservative, which Ted Cruz is. In Texas we could estimate maybe 50% are conservative—in this reddest of red states. New York is much more likely to produce “progressive” Republicans. But to be generous, if we say half of Manhattan Republicans are conservative, that’s 6%. That’s only 6 out of every 100 voters. They’re as outnumbered as blacks voting against Barack Obama. So that means Cruz’s statement is accurate.

Being referred to as having New York values does not mean all New Yorkers are bad people, or that all their values are bad. He was, as he said clearly, referring to the tendency to be socially liberal—favor abortion and gay marriage, disfavor freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. But the only values Trump could come up with were the ones that matched the whole rest of the nation after 9/11. Those weren’t at issue. Only someone as thin-skinned as Trump (or Obama) would jump at the chance to misconstrue.

But Trump took it personally. He takes everything personally. He would rule personally, by his gut, regardless of the law or the Constitution. I do not trust his New-York-values-laden gut. Or him. Or his temperament or preparation for this powerful position.

I do trust Ted Cruz, who handled the attacks with calmness, good humor, and an extraordinary command of facts. Even on those ridiculously irrelevant issues. On the issues that count, he is very prepared.

One of his better points (and it was offered first by Dr. Carson) is that, if we do not elect a Republican (and I add, a conservative dedicated to the Constitution), the next president will appoint three or four justices who agree with the dissenters on the Heller case: they believe in depriving Americans of the right to defend themselves with arms. As Carson put it, if “a progressive gets in there and they get two or three Supreme Court picks, this nation is over as we know it.”

Since Trump has agreed with the Clintons on so many issues over the years, I have no confidence that he would appoint better jurists to the Court than Clinton or Sanders.

In terms of the Spherical Model, Trump would do nothing to move northward; he might move the country further southward. Most of the candidates might be capable of moving us a tick or two northward, toward the equator. Cruz is determined to move us up where we have the opportunity to enjoy freedom, prosperity, and civilization. 

Hat Throwing

From Ted Cruz's speech at Liberty University, March 23, 2015
announcing his run for the presidency, photo montage from Rush Limbaugh

Today is the day Senator Ted Cruz announced that he is running for president of the United States.

He’s a Texan. We recently voted for him as our US Senator (2012). Before that he was serving as the Solicitor General, working with then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (our new governor). His work and education resume is notable.

I heard him speak at the first Tea Party rally I ever attended, and I made a note that he was impressive and knew the Constitution.

I heard his father, Rev. Rafael Cruz, speak at a small gathering last month, and learned some of where that understanding of the Constitution came from. Ted had memorized the Constitution as a teen and frequently spoke of freedom and free enterprise. Maybe he really was raised for such a moment as this that our once-great nation faces.

He spoke without notes or teleprompter—something the media seems amazed by, even though that was normal for Sarah Palin back when they were calling her stupid. But, rather than just being referred to as a great orator because of a one-time speech back in 2004, he has won multiple debate and speech contests—with Princeton's annual novice debate team championship named for him.

Anyway, Cruz said, “Today, I am announcing that I am running for president of the United States. It is a time for truth; it is a time for liberty, it is a time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States.”

Much of the speech covered his family story--father escaped from Cuba, mother moved up from working class to computer pioneer. He worked his way through college, and married a successful businesswoman. They have two young daughters. It was a compelling, personal story.

He also had some Reagan-like America-inspiring things to say:

“God’s blessing has been on America from the very beginning of this nation, and I believe God isn’t done with America yet.”

“The power of the American people when we rise up and stand for liberty knows no bounds.”

What is the promise of America? The idea that—the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty.

And that the purpose of the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson put it, is to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government.

The incredible opportunity of the American dream, what has enabled millions of people from all over the world to come to America with nothing and to achieve anything. And then the American exceptionalism that has made this nation a clarion voice for freedom in the world, a shining city on a hill.

That’s the promise of America. That is what makes this nation an indispensable nation, a unique nation in the history of the world.

Some of us do believe in America—the America that thrives by tenaciously sticking to the Constitution. We’ve been heartsick watching the decay and decline, as an ineffectual anti-Constitutional socialist, along with minions and media, has taken us downward into tyranny, poverty, and savagery. We can clearly see what hasn’t worked. And we know what will work, because those principles are known and historically successful.

What we need is not a strong Washington, DC, to rescue us; we need a constitutionally limited government that protects our lives, liberty, and property—but otherwise gets out of our way.

We need a strong leader as president, not because we need a ruler. We need someone who is one of us—but strong enough to stand boldly against the socialist juggernaut that has been taking over the country we love. We need this person to give us hope—to remind us that speaking up for freedom can have a positive result.

This past weekend at the local Tea Party meeting, some of the discussion covered the political dilemma regarding whether a politician should act on principle or just get whatever he can in a compromise. It was a frustrating day for me. (I'll relate this to Ted Cruz in a moment.)

There was a libertarian speaker, who came over from being Democrat when he realized free-market principles really spoke to him. But he thinks the GOP makes a mistake by paying attention to those pesky social conservatives. We should just ignore them, if we want to bring younger, more diverse people into the fold, he suggests. I asked him what particular social issues were getting in the way. He thinks we should legalize marijuana and stop opposing abortion. Just what you’d expect; some stereotypes show up because the reality is so common.

I can write about why he’s wrong on both of those issues another day. But, in brief, if we have a society that values brain altering drugs for recreation, and allowing the killing of innocent human life because of a difference of opinion—then we don’t have a society that can handle self-rule or will abide by the laws required for prosperity in a free market. You have to have civilization as a starting point. So maybe we ought to try boldly stating our views—along with the principles underlying them. And then allow the truth to attract those who actually want freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

And then we had a speaker representing a US congressman, talking about a couple of recent votes that did not go over well locally. The position included an explanation that there has to be some compromise. It might be that the congressman had a valid reason for what looked to us mere constituents as caving in. But he called people who prefer standing on principle as “cliff jumpers.”

Here is a moment in which the Spherical Model can help: if you’re in a tug-of-war with some democrats/socialists who are already well south into the tyranny zone, and you’re barely hanging on at the equator, you don’t get above the equator and into the freedom zone by compromising. All you do is submit to some level of tyranny that is by definition unacceptable.

The congressman’s representative did not win hearts by saying that we could never even threaten to allow government to shut down, because the media would do us so much damage. I asked him whether we could ever count on our representatives just doing the right thing, because the media is never going to be with us regardless.

Dr. Kyle Scott, also one of our speakers, who is a community college board member, offered a good question that we want to know about our candidates and representatives: How do we know if they’ll go the expedient or principled route?

There may be times when you get almost everything you want, and it’s enough that you can seek further progress later. That is real compromise. We understand that. But giving in is not getting what you want in the compromise; it’s giving up our freedom just because the bad guys insist on it and you're afraid of what they'll say about you.

Most of the time we want what we’re promised in the Constitution. And we want our representatives to stand boldly for that.

I got this last June at the TX GOP Convention, just in case.
Glad I'm going to find it useful.

Bold is a synomym for Ted Cruz. I prefer bold. It’s sort of like preferring Tex-Mex to milquetoast. Just more satisfying.

I’m going to repeat a few tidbits from his speech at the TX GOP Convention last June, because they have that satisfying flavor to them (from my notes, so may not all be exact quotes):

“I spent all week in Washington, DC; it’s great to be back in America.”

“In Texas, gun control means hitting what you aim at.”

“Here’s a simple rule of thumb—if you’re litigating against nuns, you’re doing something wrong.”

“We will no longer play footsie with the mullahs of Iran.”

“For five years we’ve been trapped in the Great Stagnation. And those who struggle the most are the ones most hurt by it. How do we turn that around? Get back to free-market principles…. Unleash an energy renaissance….Audit the Federal Reserve…. Abolish the IRS…. And repeal every blessed word of Obamacare.”

There may be other good candidates. I’ll enjoy hearing from them too. But I’m really looking forward to hearing some more bold, strong Constitution-conserving words from Senator Ted Cruz. He inspires hope.

Meeting a Freedom Fighter

This past Saturday we had a special speaker at our local tea party meeting. It was Rev. Rafael Cruz, father of Senator Ted Cruz. It’s the second time I’ve heard him in person, but this time was a smaller group, with more time. He’s a confident speaker, able to go on for an hour or two without notes. And he does probably a hundred or so such speeches a year.

Rev. Rafael Cruz
photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party

Rev. Cruz loves freedom. He was born in Cuba, but he makes sure you know he’s not a Cuban-American; he’s an American born in Cuba. As I recall his story, he escaped from Cuba during the early Castro regime, with $100 sewn into his clothes, and nothing else. But America is the land of the free, and he was able to prosper here, and set up circumstances for his son to get even more education and success.

He tells his son (I’ve heard Ted Cruz repeat this) that he had America to flee to; if we lose our freedoms here, where would we have to go?

He’s a strong defender of the Constitution, and structured his talk on the part of the Declaration of Independence about protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—pointing out that the order of those three things is the priority. Life has to come first—and he points out the most vulnerable are at the beginning and ending of life. Liberty is necessary, or else you’re a slave. There’s no guarantee of happiness, only a guarantee of the freedom to work for it, to pursue it in the way we choose.

As a pastor, it’s not surprising that he recognizes we live in a unique place—founded on the word of God, founded by religious people, seeking to live the word of God.

He’s a huge supporter of his son, which is understandable. He started with an anecdote following Senator Cruz’s election. Chris Wallace had asked him something like, “Are you going to Washington to join the club?” And Cruz answered, “No. I’m going to kick down the door, tear down the curtains, and auction off the silverware.”

He told some interesting background about his son’s growing up that I hadn’t heard. As Ted was entering high school, he was introduced to a leader of the American Enterprise Institute who got him reading classics. From there, Ted, in a group of five, formed what was called the Constitution Club. They memorized the Constitution. They toured the state, doing Rotary Club lunches and other forums. They would write the Constitution on several blackboards while people were eating. Then they would give speeches on free market economics.

A young Ted Cruz gave some 80 such speeches during his high school years. That had to be excellent preparation for later speaking before the US Supreme Court on behalf of the state of Texas while he was solicitor general.

I can’t think of a better high school preparation for someone serving this country. By raise of hand, how many of our elected officials have ever memorized the Constitution? Even the Preamble (we had our homeschoolers memorize it). Can they explain free market economics at least as well as Ted Cruz could in high school? That ought to be a requirement—if we could quantify it somehow as a standard.

During the Q&A I got to ask about the senator’s possible presidential ambitions. Just the night before I’d read something about the formation of a SuperPAC, which is often viewed as an exploratory preparation for running. Rev. Cruz said that the SuperPAC was formed in order to help a number of people in last November’s election, so that was its purpose and timing. However, he did acknowledge that many people have asked Senator Cruz about his willingness to run, and he says the Senator is spending some time seriously considering, and praying and discussing with family, whether he should run. And we can expect a decision one way or another in the next 30-60 days.

I got this button at the Texas GOP Convention last June,
just in case I need it someday

Over the weekend possible candidate Governor Rick Perry impolitely pointed out that we’ve tried a first-term senator without executive experience, and that hasn’t worked out so well. Ouch! Personally, I normally prefer governors, who have executive experience. I’m interested in learning more about Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Gov. Scott Walker of Michigan. There may be others. Gov. Perry isn’t my favorite, but he’s light years ahead of what we’ve been experiencing. Gov. Jeb Bush has disqualified himself by supporting Common Core and amnesty; that makes him a “progressive,” which would appeal to Democrats, except for the Bush name. So he’s pretty much unsupportable for either party. That’s of course why the media claims he leads the polls.

I’ve liked a lot of Gov. Christie’s better moments, but I’m concerned that at heart he’s not fully conservative, but so far I haven’t written him off; I’m just not rooting for him. I have similar feelings about Senator Marco Rubio—who lacks the executive experience as well, and has some explaining to do about his immigration reform ideas (which have sounded like amnesty), but I’m willing to give him a listen, since he’s been good on many other issues. Senator Rand Paul has a lot to recommend him, especially on economics. But, while he’s not his father, his foreign policy is too isolationist for a world this dangerous, so I’m concerned but haven’t written him off.

But Ted Cruz—he lives and breathes the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution leads to freedom, prosperity, and civilization—every time it’s tried. We need someone willing to try it. We can’t afford any “compromise” that just sinks us slowly into tyranny. We need restoration of the brilliant American experiment in limited government.

While I’m satisfied with Senator Cruz as my Senator, I also recognize he has a backbone and ability to articulate truth in ways we are much in need of. As for previous experience, he has served in significant positions and done them well. No floating along voting “present” and agitating community organizations. Perry’s implied comparison of Cruz and Obama is pretty ridiculous. They are polar opposites.

I’m in favor of as strong a contrast as we can get with Clinton (or the Clinton-like alternative, if such a thing should materialize), who misspent her youth immersing herself with Marx and Alinsky.

But, speculation about presidential candidates is more of a sport than a solution. Rev. Cruz pointed out that what really matters is what happens when we leave that room. Do we share our ideas with others? Do we become precinct chairs (yes—as a matter of fact, our little tea party group has worked toward that goal pretty successfully the past couple of years; I am one)? Do we run for city council and school board? We need conservative Constitutionalists at every position from the bottom to the top. And every one of us needs to speak louder and let our representatives know what we expect of them as our employees.

So much to do! It’s a blessing we have a clear voice like Rev. Cruz inspiring and encouraging us.