You raise good points make no mistake I certainly acknowledge they are valid. However speaking for myself this activity gives me reason to pause.
I was silent when Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump for this same reason: there is no, or at least very little reason for this other than the plain simple implication.
In Session’s case the simple implication is that he does indeed support Trump, and believes him to be actually more conservative than Cruz.
In this case, the simple implication is that these people indeed had no right to do this and it is a coup.
To disbelieve this would be to assign a measure of mental incapacity to Ms. Schlafly. She clearly states this was not a valid meeting “according to the by-laws” so she’s either wrong or a liar.
I don’t think she’d ever lie about something like this so she can only be wrong. If she’s wrong, then it’s a sad case of age-related mental acuity decrease.
That’s certainly possible given her age, but there isn’t any evidence that I know of to indicate such a decrease. Just because I disagree with her choice of endorsement isn’t such evidence.
I suppose, as a Cruz supporter myself, I may have said too much already. One of my charges against many who support Trump is that they have been blinded by glitz and glamor to not see him for who he is; that’s certainly possible even for the two greats I mentioned. Everyone’s human. But it’s unlikely, I must admit, and thus further action simply gives me another reason to pause. I could not let this pass without saying all of this, out of fairness and love for the truth.
All I can say in Cruz’s defense is that I seriously doubt this activity was sanctioned by the Senator himself or anyone in his campaign. So to link him and his campaign with this is (at least somewhat) akin to linking Trump with unseemly behavior on the part of some of his supporters. It’s not much but it’s something too.
To disbelieve this would be to assign a measure of mental incapacity to Ms. Schlafly. She clearly states this was not a valid meeting “according to the by-laws” so she’s either wrong or a liar.
It is also possible that by attempting to remove members of the Board unilaterally (re-read the first portion of the article), she has exceeded her authority and created a mess. If she holds that some people are off the board, and other board members hold that they are still on the board, this creates a nightmare for arguing about whether sufficient members are present for various actions. Add in age and I would be very wary about getting too involved in this bunfight from the outside.