I learned from Carl Cannon of Real Clear Politics today that Ted Cruz is running for president. Mr. Cannon spoke about the “irony” of Cruz’s vision for the nation. Perhaps I am not giving Mr. Cannon enough credit. Perhaps he is executing a conscious attempt to derogatorily define Ted Cruz out of the gate – which I could regard as a calculated, if reprehensible, move , but he actually seemed to be sincere in his criticism. How could Mr. Cannon have such a glaringly obvious blind spot? The irony of his irony is indicative of the state of the Democrat party – as one writer so perfectly put it, it is the intellectual equivalent of foot binding, their thinking has been so tightly constrained in such a small space for so long, it has become deformed.
Here are Cannon’s criticisms of Cruz:
- His “thin” resume
- His short tenure in the Senate
- His (my paraphrase) “unrealistic ideology”
If you are a conservative you are already chuckling to yourself with a knowing nod, but if you are a liberal you are probably completely lost and already sputtering left wing talking points in an effort to console yourself. So for you lefies, I will explain.
These criticisms apply with much greater weight and more just application to Barack Obama than to Ted Cruz. Here’s how:
Remember that Harvard degree that so impress you when it belonged to Barack Obama? Ted Cruz has a Harvard degree, Magna Cum Laude. He also has a degree from Princeton, Cum Laude. Liberal Professor Alan Dershowitz called him “off the charts brilliant.” Unlike Obama, he had a position of responsibility as Solicitor General of Texas, where he argued Constitutional law before the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama also spent two years as a senator before he started his presidential campaign. Unlike Ted Cruz, he was working for Acorn and busy “community organizing.”
On ideology, Mr. Cannon expresses dismay that Cruz would imagine a country without Obamacare or the IRS. He apparently is not one of the millions of Americans hurt by Obamacare, as I am. Self employed and no longer able to afford Health Insurance, because of Obamacare, but still paying tax dollars to pay for others health care, and a fine to boot.
Why is it that Democrats believe abolishing an IRS that targets citizens based on political party is unthinkable, but a nuclear Iran is acceptable? How did they get so backward? And how could Carl Cannon miss the oh-so-obvious parallels of his criticism of Cruz and the Obama campaign he supported?
Is it the politically correct bubble they live in where everyone thinks just like they do? The DC/NY corridor where they never meet an average American person? Or just the religious devotion to all things big government?
This lack of self-awareness, and inability to see things objectively often leads to wrong conclusions, and wrong conclusions lead to faulty solutions, and faulty solutions lead to bad outcomes. Which is how we find ourselves with a President that does not respect our Constitution, does not listen to the will of the people, does not create an environment of prosperity at home or security abroad, yet is still supported by people like Carl.
#ThingsWeTrustMoreThanObama is trending on Twitter. Go there. It will lift your soul.
Politicos in Washington don’t care about process. To their mind, whatever it takes to achieve the goal is acceptable. To their mind, the only thing that matters is the political “win.”
To real Americans, average Americans, the process should and does matter. Our Republic, our Constitution, is what protects us from an abusive government. No matter how dumbed down and complacent too many of us have become, there is still something which stirs inside and says to us, “not good!” in response to Obama’s unconstitutional action.
There are three branches of government, designed to work in conflict with each other. The congress and the presidency, as well as the separate branches within congress, and the states and federal government are antagonistic by design. The framers felt that only through competing powers could the power of each individual branch be kept in check.
The legislative branch, the House in particular, is to represent the people. They are closest to the people, and most accountable. This is why they alone were given the power to appropriate funds.
When the president takes the functions of the legislative branch upon himself, where is our representation? When the president takes our tax dollars and uses them for purposes not appropriated by our congress, where is our representation?
Like it or not, pundits, the issue at hand is no different than that of King George the Third. Taxation without representation is what we are experiencing.
There is no place to escape to, so we must work within the system, and I hope and pray that our Supreme Court will involve itself and reinforce the limits of presidential power. If not, we have ceased to be citizens, and have returned to being subjects.
Should Americans be concerned about Ebola? Should we suspend visas from the hardest hit countries?
These are the questions we’re wrangling with as we face the first outbreak of Ebola in the US. The administration and his supporters in the Democrat party are attempting to portray the very question as foolish, and concerned Americans as “hysterical.” So let’s take a look at this from a rational risk assessment perspective.
Above is a standard risk assessment matrix, commonly used by businesses and organizations to assess risk. We have two attributes to assess our risk: severity, and probability, or likelihood. Clearly Ebola poses a catastrophic risk, not only because it “may cause death,” in fact a 50/50 chance of death on an individual level, but poses a systemic risk to society in many ways if a large outbreak were to occur. Last month, we could have postulated that Ebola was “unlikely” to occur in the United States as the President said, but since we have already had one case of Ebola come to the US and spread, we have to conclude that even if unlikely, it’s obviously possible, and move our probability to “seldom”. That puts us in the “high risk” category, right now, today.
It also demonstrates why, no matter how many times Democrats quote figures of the numbers flu deaths each year, it remains a low risk. The risk is “negligible,” even though it is “likely to occur in time.”
Now we need to look forward, which all reasonable and responsible people do. Is it more likely that the disease will grow and continue to spread, or is it more likely that it will be contained and subside?
On this, there is no question, the World Health Organization has been very clear. There is no containment of Ebola in sight. Right now it has an R-0 factor of slightly over 2, which means that every person who contracts the disease spreads it to two other people. Until that number is brought below 1, the disease will continue to spread. At close to 10,000 confirmed cases, the medical system has been overwhelmed. What happens at 100,000 cases, or as the in WHO’s worst case scenario, a million cases by January? It’s literally unfathomable. Does that make it more or less likely that the disease will spread outside of it’s current borders? And what does it do to our risk assessment matrix? It’s fair to propose that the chance of the Ebola infection entering the US and spreading would go from “seldom” to “quite likely to occur in time.” Which would mean we would move into the “extreme risk” category. Additional contributing risk factors would be the uncertainties over means of transmission, the difficulty of performing human trials on a disease so deadly, and the completely unprecedented nature of the current outbreak (currently 9,000 confirmed cases, the next largest outbreak was 425 cases, according to the CDC.)
It should be clear by using common risk assessment, that Ebola presents a “high risk” to our country. Our leaders should treat it as such, and take every possible precaution to mitigate that risk in every possible way. The stakes are too high not to.