Free Republic

Kudos for a well-considered, well-written argument, Dr. Sivana. I agree with every word.

What disturbs me at this point in the campaigns, though, is the fact that most people are now focusing on numbers and 'nominatability' ... while what should still be the primary issue in the election (i.e., the character, courage, consistency of conviction, vision, integrity and honesty of the candidates) has fallen by the wayside.

I spent this morning in Hershey, PA listening to among the most passionate speeches I have ever heard, delivered by a man who is the first man to come along in almost thirty years who may prove fully capable of filling Ronald Reagan’s shoes. And I spent this evening in Lebanon, PA at a meet and greet with Carly Fiorina, one of the most principled women in America today, entirely devoted to the restoration of the American vision, and unwilling to line up behind those who prefer to base their political endorsements on either empty promises or the bandwagon effect.

Then I came home tonight only to hear the dichotomy from the front-runner: snippets of the typical Trump whining, boasting, name-calling, character assassination, and superficial 'policy' enumeration on tonight's news, and I couldn't help but become even more determined to do my (admittedly small) part to see to it that those in whose presence I was privileged to be today prevail.

I have been campaigning for Ted Cruz here in Pennsylvania for almost four weeks now, and intend to continue to do so until next Tuesday’s primary. No, I harbor no pie-in-the-sky belief that Ted will win the popular vote in the Pennsylvania primary, but I believe he will garner a respectable number of Pennsylvania delegates through a combination of faithful, well-organized grassroots support, honest and tireless campaigning, a knowledge of and willingness to abide by, and work hard within the boundaries of, the primary rules established by each individual state, and a genuine love of, and dedication to, the U.S. Constitution and our Founders’ vision.

To know that running a campaign in that well-organized and completely upright manner has been fiercely and viciously denigrated by Donald Trump is infuriating to me.

Ted Cruz understood the existing ground rules going into this election cycle, set up an organization whose roots were in existence even before he announced his candidacy, and has run an absolutely brilliant campaign, within the prescribed rules, and by exhibiting an organizational ability that completely eclipses that shown by his 'brilliant businessman' opponent.

And yet Trump chooses to crucify an opponent who decides to play by the rules and run an honest campaign, while attempting to self-righteously elevate himself ... a man who knew those rules full well from the word go and, rather than expend the time, energy and research needed to win under them, chose to do nothing more than benefit from them, when he could (and he did, quite often), and whine about them, when they did not work to his advantage.

If Ted is successful in winning the republican nomination (presumably on the second or third ballot in Cleveland), those with whom I have been working here in Pennsylvania will redouble our efforts in looking ahead to November. If he is not successful in his bid for the nomination, we will simply re-group and search our hearts for how best to proceed in doing what we can to see to it that Hillary Clinton never takes up residence in the White House.

An aside: Donald Trump won sixty percent of the popular vote in New York yesterday, yet took home ninety-five percent of the delegates. I have not been able to listen as much of the news as I would have liked to today. Please fill me in on how vehemently he was tearing apart the ‘undemocratic’ primary process in New York, in that the percentage of delegates he won was a full fifty-plus percent more than the percentage of the popular vote that he won. He had to be screaming about the ‘rigged, 100% crooked’ unfairness, right?

What troubles me deeply about Trump is his past enormous financial support of far left candidates and policies (some of that support being doled out very recently).

Ted Cruz attempted to point out the frightening interpretations of that 'generosity' to Bill O'Reilly last week ... to no avail, of course.

I have a lot of conservative friends who are in business, several of whom own thriving local businesses. Needless to say, their business ventures are not anywhere near as massive, or profit-producing, as Donald Trump's, but I know, without a doubt, that, even if their businesses would benefit greatly if they donated to political candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the Gang of Eight, etc., they would never open their checkbooks for such a purpose ... simply because they have deeply-held personal convictions, and strong beliefs regarding the legitimate (limited) role of government.

It's called being able to look at the big picture, and refusing to fund the purposeful destruction of both individual and economic liberty vs. lining one's own pockets. My good friends who are in business for themselves would always embrace the former. Donald Trump appears to often opt for the latter, and I am sick and tired of hearing the excuses that 'he did so as a businessman', or 'he also contributed to conservative candidates and causes'. Both excuses simply reflect the fact that he has no core political beliefs to which he is willing to hold fast. I don't care under what guise he contributed to the rise and increased power of leftists bent on re-writing the American vision. Doing so simply reveals the shallowness of his character and his insatiable desire for personal wealth and power. Such a man, who would sell his soul in order to increase his profits, does not deserve to be leader of the free world, because he is willing to place other people's freedoms in jeopardy because he himself worships at the altar of the almighty dollar.

Kudos, Race, for culling all of these examples from a man who has no respect for truth.

I am currently going door-to-door here in Pennsylvania on Cruz's behalf, and have been both uplifted and depressed at some of the conversations I have had with local voters.

I printed out your list yesterday and presented it to a few people tonight, just to see what kind of reaction it would engender. Most were impressed and in agreement with your (and my) support of Cruz, but one woman perused the list and remarked, 'In spite of this, I can't vote for Cruz. His voice reminds me too much of my ex-husband's.'

No, she was not joking. Nor was she simply attempting to get a rise out of me. She was entirely serious, and was unknowingly exhibiting the depth, and critical thinking ability, of so many members of the modern American electorate, which goes a long way toward explaining the Trump phenomenon.

I couldn't agree more, ravinson.

The man is unprincipled and immoral, and there are hundreds of examples that he has left in his wake to prove the fact that he stands for nothing other than his own self-aggrandizement and wealth/power accumulation. He has stepped on, and mercilessly slandered, more people (both 'little people' and big ones) on his way to the top than most of us even realize.

The thought of a man as personally principled and firmly rooted in the Constitution as Ted Cruz (the only candidate fully capable of filling Ronald Reagan's shoes who has come along since Reagan left the White House) teaming up with such an unprincipled ogre is unconscionable.

We are not supposed to compromise with evil, not matter the threats or repercussions involved.

Even if all we knew about Donald Trump were his most recent offenses committed against Heidi Cruz, that would be sufficient to disqualify him from holding America's highest office, on grounds that he is a lying, superficial, petulant character assassin.

Unfortunately, he has committed significantly more, and deeper, immoral crimes than this latest one. The count increases daily, and if that fact is not significant enough for the American electorate to turn away from this evil man, then America, unfortunately, deserves the bleak future that will lie ahead, whether it be under a Trump or Clinton presidency. If you place your faith in an unprincipled, characterless candidate (no matter the capital letter behind his/her name) who has no respect for truth or personal integrity, you are rolling a pair of dice whose outcome will be disastrous, at best. History is replete with such examples, but we Americans appear to be slow learners, despite the brilliant, painstaking roadmap laid out for us by our Founders and the unimaginable sacrifices they made in order to author it.

Well said, RB. Trump appears to be able to say any kind of outrageous thing, bet let Cruz say something that can simply be interpreted as off the wall, and all hell breaks loose.

Ted Cruz has never ... not once ... incited or condoned the use of violence of any sort. And yet Trump, even when attempting to appear magnanimous, has repeatedly done so.

I loathe quoting the likes of Robert Reich, but, in an editorial today, he cited several such examples, one of which was:

Weeks after Trump began his campaign by falsely alleging that Mexican immigrants are 'bringing crime, they're racists', two brothers in Boston beat with a metal poll and urinated on a 58-year-old homeless Mexican national. They subsequently told the police 'Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.

Instead of condemning the brutality, Trump excused it by saying, 'People who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and want this country to be great again.'

Adding this reaction to those that you have mentioned, as well as dozens of others, it would appear that Donald Trump views the acceptance of violence as a situational thing. And to excoriate Ted Cruz for attempting to point that out amounts to the basest form of hypocrisy.

Betty, you cannot make blanket statements such as this:

The people who loathe and disparage Donald Trump aren't so much loathing and disparaging HIM as they are loathing and disparaging the Trump VOTER. And who is the Trump voter? Largely working class folks, folks in the trades, middle-class people. Those of us smug about our fine college educations often think such people are hapless, stupid, clueless about how to manage their lives without expert help. Certainly they can't be trusted to run our government.

... and then, when a person who fits into the category you are describing as 'loathing and disparaging the Trump voter' takes offense at that characterization, you suggest that that person is too thin-skinned and shouldn't be taking your comments 'personally'.

Your description of those who do not support Trump was wide-ranging and unfair, and I, and almost all of my close family and friends, happen to fall, unfairly, into your stereotypical group. Rather than adjusting your description so as to possibly include a much smaller subset of Trump non-supporters, you choose instead to suggest that I must have a tendency to 'take things too personally'. That is not the case at all, and I believe that it is you who might want to consider reining in your blanket criticisms, and your apparent penchant to lump together all of those citizens who choose not to support Donald Trump by describing them as somehow intolerant of working-class Americans. That is a deeply offensive blanket characterization, and one's skin would have to be armor-thick in order to not be personally offended by it.

I'll not pursue this anymore, and I suspect that you also would prefer to end this discussion.

I, too, wish you well, and I, too, will vote for whomever the republican nominee is, no matter how distasteful to me his candidacy might be.

Jeff, I deeply admire you for maintaining such a courteous and respectful demeanor, in spite of the historically unprecedented rancor that has become such an integral part of this divisive election cycle. So proud to continue to call you my friend. :)

~ joanie

Just had a thought pop into my little head, just five minutes ago, right out of the blue. (I do get thoughts every now and then.) It is this: The people who loathe and disparage Donald Trump aren't so much loathing and disparaging HIM as they are loathing and disparaging the Trump VOTER.

And who is the Trump voter? Largely working class folks, folks in the trades, middle-class people. Those of us smug about our fine college educations often think such people are hapless, stupid, clueless about how to manage their lives without expert help. Certainly they can't be trusted to run our government.

Who are you, betty? You are not the woman whose words I read with regularity for so many years here on FR, because you were so unfailingly intelligent, eloquent and fair. Reading some of your posts of late, when those posts concern Donald Trump and his political opposition, I have scratched my head in disbelief, wondering where the fairness went.

I am a vehement opponent of Donald Trump, and have written much regarding how I came to join that particular camp. And my writing has included much negativity regarding the man and what I believe he represents. At the same time, I have never personally disparaged any Trump supporter. Not his allegiances. Not his perspective. Especially not his personal motives for his political viewpoint. Not one of the above.

You suggest that those of us who oppose Donald Trump (people who are often 'smug about their college educations') do not actually dislike Trump himself but, instead, actually dislike 'working class folks, folks in the trades, middle-class people'.

That you, never having personally met me or others who will not support Donald Trump and are very vocal about our dislike of him, would attribute to us a personal distain for that segment of America that was (and still is) most responsible for America's rise in becoming the most moral and prosperous civilization in the history of mankind, is beyond inconceivable to me.

My Dad, the most incredible human being I have ever known, was a blue-collar worker for fifty years, often working 10-12 hours a day to put food on the table for his family during the 50s and 60s, and whose intelligence, sense of duty, industry, honesty, and love of country were second to none. He instilled in me, and virtually everyone he knew well, a deep and abiding reverence for 'working class America', and I have lived my life sharing that message.

I am a part of a group here in our township that is working on a program that we hope will allow us to speak at schools in our area of the state, presenting a program called 'The Case for Working With Your Hands' (based loosely on This article by Matthew Crawford).

And I am by no means alone. I would estimate that close to half of my (and my husband's) friends are college-educated 'professionals' and well over half are blue-collar workers, tradespeople, stay-at-home mothers, and the like. And I know, for a fact, that not a one of those friends has a negative opinion of the kind of people you theorize that we 'loathe and disparage', for any reason, and certainly not by virtue of the fact that we are not supporters of Donald Trump. To even intimate so is a stereotyping that is beyond unjust, and it hits me, personally, at the core of who I am, as well as reflecting poorly on many of my friends and family, who most certainly do not deserve to be the recipients of such unfair negative stereotyping, simply by virtue of whom they are supporting/not supporting in this election cycle.

You will note that, in this response, I have not once attributed personal motives/perspectives to your assertion, even when that assertion painted, with a broad, black brush, both me and many of the people I love/loved and whose opinions I cherish. Such broad, negative generalizations have no place in civil debate.

Very nice work, Jeff. It’s difficult to present figures and analyses in an unbiased way, since emotions and prejudices seem to rule the day more in this election cycle than any one I have ever seen ... but you did so masterfully. Kudos for that! :)

Nice work here, Jeff.

I believe this race is all but over, and you know full well how I feel about the projected result.

As I have said before, I will vote for the republican candidate, no matter how distasteful I find doing so to be.

And, assuming Donald Trump wins the nomination, after July we will see a media onslaught unlike we have ever seen in this country. The media are no doubt amassing mountains of evidence of Trump's unfitness to be president (some of it true, some of it magnified out of all realistic proportions, and some of it created out of whole cloth), and, in comparison, and as a result of their refusal to accurately report her high crimes, Hillary will appear to be pure as the driven snow.

The choreography is intricate, and it will be interesting (if terribly tragic) to see it played out.

That is all assuming that the FBI and/or DOJ completely abdicate their Constitutional responsibilities to indict her in the interim (which is a pretty fair bet as well).

We could be witnessing a lost opportunity to turn this country around in a lawful way and agree with you that the dogs of war will soon be released on Trump who probably carries more baggage than we can even imagine.

Agreed. Once he has the nomination in hand, the media (who no doubt have been amassing a mountain of 'dirt' on him) will time-release that mountain of evidence that he is not fit to be president, and, if the FBI and the DOJ have not honored their Constitutional commitment before then, the socialist felon will most likely win in a landslide.

The choreography (and it really is quite impressive in its behind-the-scenes intricacies) is unprecedented.

I have debated, on other political websites, the merits of the charges being thrown at Cruz and his campaign regarding what happened after CNN's announcement that Carson was headed back to Florida, and I have vowed not to enter in any such debates anymore, simply because no minds seem open to changing their opinion on this matter. Timelines do not match up, interpretations do not come together for a meeting of the minds, and people are immovable regarding their opinion about it, simply because of the 'facts' as they see them. If you cannot accept the fact that I will no longer address that issue, because I have already spent countless hours doing so, then you probably will not want to read what follow (and I completely understand that).

Donald Trump has left behind him decades of broken promises, lies, vicious personal attacks on people who have done nothing more egregious than disagree with him, and monumental changes of heart/mind regarding his political allegiances. I referred to four (of many) such examples in my recent Patriot Post commentary, posted here just yesterday.

Yet, after being made aware of such characterless behaviors, spanning decades, rather than stepping back and analyzing such behaviors, many of his supporters instead either (1) choose to point to a single incident possibly committed by one of his political opponents, and/or (2) completely ignore, or denigrate without factual support, the evidence being presented against Trump's character.

I, and others, will be checking back here in late summer, once Trump has garnered the republican nomination, after which the media will be releasing a destructive version of the dogs of war such as we have never seen, 'conveniently' exposing the underside of every one of Trump's personal and business 'deals', after which the democrat nominee (whomever that will be, avowed socialist, or covert socialist/felon) will simply waltz into the White House and complete Mr. Obama's 'transformation of America'.

The most tragic aspect of that entirely choreographed scenario will be that there was a Reagan-esque leader who valiantly sought to prevent our republic's demise, and the American electorate turned their backs on him, according vocal and unyielding preference to a snake oil salesman who promised them what they wanted to hear, but whose promises were not worth the breath it took to utter them.

The fact that Trump 'doesn't know squat about the Bible' would be palatable but for the fact that he has declared that the Bible is his 'favorite book', and yet, when asked to cite a few of his favorite verses from that 'favorite book', was unable to come up with one.

He has also stated that he has never had to ask the Lord for forgiveness, but prefers instead to simply change any problem behaviors himself.

I am not questioning his Christianity, but simply pointing out that using said Christianity as a convenient political tool might be __________ (fill in the blank with whatever positive, or negative, adjective you see fit).

Anyone who can include Ted Cruz under the category of ‘status quo’ politician simply hasn’t been paying attention to his constant battles against precisely that in the senate.

Very well said, Jeff.

Like you, despite my very deep reservations about Donald Trump's character, and the troubling historical examples of his fleeting allegiances, I will vote for him in November if the choice comes down to him or any other likely democrat.

I see such a vote as voting for the proverbial 'pig in a poke', since I have absolutely no idea the kind of leadership decisions he will make. His history is so littered with changes of heart, and so many of his decisions seem to have been based on one primary goal: the increase of his own personal power and wealth. When you insert such a man into the role of President of the United States, and leader of the free world, you are taking a monumental gamble as to how he will exercise that power, both in his executive role here at home and in his dealings with the leaders of foreign powers. It's a terrifying roll of the dice.

And yet we KNOW what we will get with a President Clinton or a President Sanders, and the thought of either one sitting in the White House is beyond abhorrent.

God bless and keep you, Jeff. We know, after all is said and done, Who is in control, and no amount of activism, or worry, or concern, is stronger or wiser than His will. May He forgive this country's turning her back on Him and inspire a reawakening among her people, and may the man who seeks to simply do what is right for this country be sitting in the White House next January 20th.

Betty, I will keep this brief, because, from experience, I know that arguing such firmly held beliefs can often lead to nothing but hurt feelings and raised blood pressure, with no minds changed in the process.

The one point you make that I cannot let slide without comment is your argument that the 'local municipality', rather than Donald Trump, brought the eminent domain suit against Vera Coking. Do you seriously believe that, especially since his casino complex was next door to that home, and eventually built itself up around it, and knowing full well the power Trump yielded in Atlantic City at the time, Trump applied no pressure in order for the municipality to do so? I believe he simply used his personal/financial power in order to persuade the powers that be to do his legal bidding.

You are certainly not the only citizen who believes that the Founders' original intent in penning the eminent domain concept into the Constitution would include taking a person's private property, against his will, with compensation, for 'public use' would include defining 'public use' as creating more jobs and increasing the tax base of a municipality.

I do not believe the Founders would have condoned such government over-reach, for many reasons, only one of which is the fact that they debated long and hard when penning the Declaration of Independence as to whether to word the famous phrase 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' as, instead, 'life, liberty and property.' That alone reflects just how incredibly sacred they believed a person's property should be. I cannot imagine them placing jobs and tax revenues above the right of a person to retain his long-held family home. Then again, that is one person's opinion, and your hold an apparently very different one.

I have enjoyed many interactions over the years with you, betty, here on Facebook, and have come away from all of them with a sense of kinship, and have quite often learned valuable information, and lessons, from you. Yet, because of my stance on Trump vs. Cruz, you have chosen to call some of my remarks 'gratuitous' and have chosen to label my vantagepoint a 'privileged view' (while also, yourself, calling Ted Cruz 'dishonest' and of 'bad character'). You also ended your remarks by using the word 'psychosis' in order to describe those who speak badly of Donald Trump.

I will offer no personal commentary about that, other than the above. Nor will I ever write anything to disparage your vantage point, or your method of conveying it.

Thank you all for your responses here. I am currently out of town, with a full plate, but will answer many of your comments here when I return next week.

I just want to make a few brief observations regarding the character of Donald Trump, simply because it amazes me that so many friends and acquaintances who I know to be deeply moral and religious people are overlooking, to me, what I believe are frightening red flags, and telling insights into the man’s heart.

I believe there are many other red flags in this man’s policy/beliefs history (and I will gladly debate them with anyone who has an interest in doing that, once I return home), but for now let’s just look at three examples of character-related ones:

(1) We all know that, in 1993, Trump attempted to abuse the Founders’ Constitutional intent regarding the use of eminent domain, when he tried to use that legal concept to force an elderly woman out of her home in order to construct a limousine waiting area outside one of his casinos. The end of their protracted legal battle resulted in Vera Coking being allowed to remain in her home — which she continued to do for seventeen more years, until health problems forced her to move to a retirement home nearer to her children and grandchildren.

During the legal battle between Trump and Coking, Trump accused her of being a money hungry, anti-progress person (and worse) and stated that, because her home was preserved, people would be forced to ‘stare at a terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.’

Even today, more than twenty years later, Trump insists that he had every right to attempt to force her out of her home, simply because he offered her more than it was worth (which is still a matter of contention among people who are familiar with the legal battle).

Let’s look at just that aspect of the man’s character:

What does it tell us when a man believes that the only value of a home rests in its monetary value? Vera Coking had lived in her home for thirty years. She had raised her children there before the passing of her husband and she intended to live there for the rest of her life, God willing. Yet a perfect stranger feels (even today) that he has the power to simply declare that the intrinsic memory-rich, nostalgic value that house held for her has no real meaning. The almighty dollar invariably trumps the individual’s right to define what is deeply important, and precious, to him or her.

Trump’s statement ‘They’re staring at a terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good,’ is the utterance of a dictator. What leader of a free society believes he has the power, and the right, to call another person’s house ‘terrible’ simply because it isn’t being used to turn a large profit, and to declare that ‘beautiful fountains’ are ‘good’? The man believes that he, not an average American citizen, has the ability ... even the right ... to define what is terrible and what is good, even when the object of the discussion is something about which he has no knowledge or acquaintance, and something about which that average citizen knows every corner and included, and personally indelible, memory.

This, by the way, was Vera’s ‘terrible’ house:

https://www.google.com/search?q=vera+coking’s+house&rlz=1T4GUEA_enUS645US646&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwp9CmtZHLAhWCkI4KHZwVAgMQ_AUICSgD&biw=1024&bih=567#imgrc=Bf2ck2ds8mINYM%3A

(2) Mr. Trump has recently discovered that Marlene Ricketts, part owner of the Chicago Cubs, has donated three million dollars to a super PAC that is running ads against his candidacy. Ms. Ricketts’ donations have been completely above board and were properly reported in public documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Donald Trump’s response upon hearing about the donations? He went on Twitter and accused Marlene Ricketts of ‘secretly’ spending money against him, and tweeted, ‘I hear the Rickets family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $’s against me. They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!’

Keep in mind, this is a man who is seeking the presidency of the United States, and the leadership of the free world, attacking an American citizen for doing nothing more than exercising her right to spend her money as she sees fit. And then he publicly threatened to expose supposed skeletons in her family’s closet as a result of her exercise of that right.

That, in plain English, is called extortion.

(3) The story of Trump University paints a grotesque picture of a heartless man, who has absolutely no compassion for the innocent everyday Americans whom he bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money.

Trump claimed, over and over, to be completely involved with the university, having hand-picked the ‘professors’, and having kept a close watch over the formulation/content of the curriculum, and yet most of his ‘professors’ turned out to be people he had never met, and, worse than that, they were simply sales associates, with absolutely no educational background at all. Two of these ‘professorial experts’ even filed for personal bankruptcy during the time they were teaching at this so-called ‘university’, and few of them were even in the midst of their own business bankruptcy proceedings when they were hired to teach classes on how to get rich in real estate.

As if the empty promises weren’t bad enough, and as if bilking hundreds of ordinary Americans (many of whom are plaintiffs in the suits filed against the university) out of tens of thousands of dollars each weren’t enough, Trump, to this day, claims that this entire endeavor was nothing more than an altruistic, charitable venture, and that all of his profits would go to charity ... yet Trump himself pocketed $5 million of the $40 million poured into the organization by unsuspecting ‘average Americans’, enriching his own personal many-billion-dollar coffers at the expense of the ‘little people’ whose votes he is courting by means of his faux compassion for the American middle class.

The ‘university’ also used constant bait-and-switch tactics, conning their ‘students’ to invest in more and more expensive ‘classes’, and instructing them to arrange with their banks to dramatically increase the credit limits on their credit cards so as to be able to afford the (useless) ‘classes’.

When accompanied by nothing more meaningful than grandiose words, a man’s character comes into serious question and his promises, such as his phony, non-existent hands-on connection to his university, appear meaningless. Donald Trumps candidacy consists in large part of nothing more than grandiose promises ... and angry tirades, or worse, aimed at those who dare question the sincerity, viability or depth of those promises.

Just ask the Vera Coking, the Ricketts Family, and the ‘students’ of Trump University. They’ll tell you an earful.

Ping for comment, criticism or additional ideas.

My latest Patriot Post commentary