Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Carly Fiorina Endorses Ted Cruz

    Posted by Michael Hiteshew on March 9th, 2016 (All posts by )

    FiorinaCruz

     

    Here’s the truth: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are two sides of the same coin. Trump has made billions buying politicians and their influence, and Hillary Clinton has made millions selling her influence to people like Trump.
    That’s why we need President Ted Cruz. Ted has spent his life protecting Americans’ God-given liberties, and he always stands by his word.

    I know Ted, and he’ll do the same as president.

    Before I sign off, one last thing.

    There is good news…in the most recent polls Ted beats Donald Trump by 17 points in a one-on-one race.

    And Ted, unlike Trump, defeats Hillary Clinton in a one-on-one race.

    Again, I need you now to help me support Ted Cruz. He is our best hope to return a true conservative to the White House and reverse the disastrous eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency.

     

    29 Responses to “Carly Fiorina Endorses Ted Cruz”

    1. Mike K Says:

      I’m disappointed in her. I sent her money and was ready to vote for her but she wimped out on immigration.

      Maybe she was always pro-immigration but the voters are not.

      NBC News thinks it knows, but I’m not so sure.

      Finally, another reason we may be seeing more moderate responses to immigration is that Republicans have for some time now agreed that immigrants should have some pathway to legalization or citizenship. A 2014 Pew Hispanic Research study found that 61 percent of Republicans said that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country.

      They did? I must have missed that poll.

      Jerry Brown must think it is OK to have them vote

      My leftist son and his wife think so.

      Maybe they should ask more people.

      Belanger, 57, said he’s proud of his immigrant family’s heritage. He carries around his grandfather’s green card. His grandfather was Canadian; his grandmother was originally from Ireland. He works for a New Hampshire-based manufacturing firm that builds piping for companies all over the region and the world, and says immigration personally affects him from an economic perspective.

      He believes those working here illegally drive down wages and benefits.

      “Whether it’s roofers or whether it’s welders, it affects me even when they are in Texas or California,” he said. “We are in a global economy.”

      Belanger, like many voters here, said he’s looking for a more substantial solution than building a wall and deporting everyone who lives here illegally, as Trump proposes.

      Lots of Trump supporters are just that because of immigration.

    2. Ginny Says:

      and his position is? personally? demagogically? honestly?

    3. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      I supported her as well, both morally and financially, from very early on. I was totally impressed with her and I’m sorry she didn’t get more traction. She has a really good grasp of the problems faced by citizens and small businesses in the face of a large, powerful, bureaucratic, and increasingly corrupt federal government. She also showed a good grasp of of the international situation and recommended some sensible things we could be doing to make a positive difference. I’m really sorry the disinformation warriors were so effective in discrediting her with low information and/or too busy to really care types. I think she would have made a good executive for us. Water under the bridge at this point though.

    4. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      I’m on her email list, that’s where I got this.

    5. David Foster Says:

      “Here’s the truth: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are two sides of the same coin. Trump has made billions buying politicians and their influence, and Hillary Clinton has made millions selling her influence to people like Trump.”

      That is a very well-crafted line.

    6. TangoMan Says:

      That is a very well-crafted line.

      Well crafted, maybe, but meaningless. Martin Luther was a Catholic priest. From the inside he saw how the Church was really run, how the sausage was really made, and became the agent which kicked off the Protestant Revolution.

      If one buys politicians it doesn’t follow that once you become a politician you will be open to being bought. If you hire a prostitute, this doesn’t imply that you are open to selling yourself as prostitute. If you buy pot for your own enjoyment, this doesn’t imply that you’re willing to be a pot dealer. If you travel to Africa pay a bribe to a customs official in the airport to allow you to enter the country, this doesn’t mean that once back home you are open to being bribed to reveal work secrets.

    7. Mike K Says:

      Hillary is a pretty much open book. She has been around since the Rose Law Firm and the Secret Service people said in 1992 they were the most paranoid couple ever to occupy The White House. Gary Aldrich had some good observations.

      I haven’t read Clinton Cash but I know the story of Haiti and the Rose Law Firm billing records.

      The e-mail story fits right in with her paranoia and her ignorance of any rules of government. It didn’t matter to her that the White House Travel Office had been doing travel arrangements for multiple presidents and it didn’t matter if Russia and China could read her e-mails.

      Queen Elizabeth is more humble and genuine.

    8. Mrs. Davis Says:

      She spoke to my daughters’ school. They didn’t like her.

      She killed the HP way. Not really, it was already on life support.

      She’ll be a great pit bull for Cruz. Department of Commerce.

    9. Will Says:

      Sea Island. A lovely place, location, amenities, a place where you can manage the crowds, keep a check on the riff-raff as it were. A great place for a convention, a Republican convention, in the age of an Obama. The GOPe know where and how to meet. No tear gas, no Mckesson’s Mau-Mau’s.

      I’m a Ted fan also, but the more flack Trump gets from all sides, and the abject failure of the party to do anything against the regime in the past years, means I may be willing to go with him.

    10. Jonathan Says:

      Queen Elizabeth is more humble and genuine.

      I’d vote for her. If non-citizens can vote now, maybe they can also run for office.

    11. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      She spoke to my daughters’ school. They didn’t like her.

      She’s a tough woman, I’m guessing they aren’t used to hearing from people like that. One of my sisters loves her, another can’t stand her. My eighty year old mom, a fan of The Donald, had this reaction:

      “I listened to that lady you like, what’s her name?, Carly something?, she seems really smart and very competent. Very can-do. I see why you like her. But I have to say, she seems mean! She has a mean face too!”

      :-P

      She doesn’t strike me as mean. She seems like like a woman used to dealing with difficult realities. I still like her.

    12. Anonymous Says:

      Well crafted and meaningful. Well said Michael!

      There was a track record for Martin Luther that gave others an assurance he wasn’t just “winning everything” as his highest goal. There is no such assurance that Trump means anything he says. In fact he has been on both sides of so many important issues, there is every reason to judge that he may mean very little of it and that includes being righteous on immigration.

      The Hildebeast won’t release transcripts of her Wall Street paid talks and the Thrumpeter won’t release his “off the record” interview with the NYT on immigration. He must be trying to protect the NYT (they were the ones who insisted that it be off the record, right?). See any commonality here?

      This isn’t about the Reformation, it is about people who are fundamentally corrupt and engage in the buying and selling of political power and influence. That is real prostitution on both sides of the exchange, only it is not a victimless crime. Now these two each want the keys to the controlling seat of power and have amply shown their unsuitability by their open participation in the whoring of our trust. Sure, those are the folks I’m going to take their word on what they will do with this power.

      Death6

    13. TangoMan Says:

      That is real prostitution on both sides of the exchange, only it is not a victimless crime.

      When a tourist in Africa is forced to pay a bribe to a customs official, I don’t see that tourist as being a corrupt person. The customs official, yes, he’s corrupt, but the tourist isn’t, he’s forced to play along in a corrupt game.

      Cruz, Rubio, Carly, everyone of the candidates except for Trump, has been the recipient of donor-class funding. I’d love to read why Rubio accepting donor funds signals that he’s corrupt but Cruz is not corruptible for receiving the same type of funding.

    14. Ginny Says:

      Consider what is bought with those crony dollars? Usually a narrower playing field that cuts out competitors or a tax break that similar (but often competing) others don’t get or a helpful change in the law (if he was resistant to this, wouldn’t he be less exuberant about pressuring the use of eminent domain for his own private profit). A true believer in the free market (or honesty or transparency) might balk at these. I’ve known people who have and it has not made their lives easier but it has made them more honorable.

      Our president should see himself (humbly) in a tradition of honor that goes back to Washington and as the leader of the strongest nation in the world. It should not be someone whose “victory” speech consisted of defending his steaks and water and bizarre “university.” A businessman’s ego can be bound up in his products (I’m not sure that’s a bad thing but it certainly seemed both delusional and incoherent.)

      But when Fiorina talked, she clearly had that “vision thing.” Trump seems to have that “ego thing.” I liked the way she connected dots – the reality – to the overarching principle time after time.

      Oh, well. I’m tired of bashing Trump and should be celebrating Fiorina – whose speech was strong and attractive.

    15. Mike K Says:

      But when Fiorina talked, she clearly had that “vision thing.”

      I liked her and sent her money. However, she ignored the two primary issues this year. She was unwilling to address immigration, legal and illegal, and she was unwilling to talk about Muslim immigration.

      2014 statement. Showdown. Because it only helps Obama and hurts the American people. But what they should do is systematically and soberly pass a series of bills to solve a decades-old problem. And they should point out to Hispanics all over this nation that this president has taken advantage of them. He sunk comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. He did nothing to push forward immigration reform when he had the Senate, the House, and the White House. He said in ’11 and ’12 he couldn’t do anything. And then he delayed his action for the elections. Unbelievable cynicism.

      Immigration “reform.”

      Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said Tuesday that rival Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country was unconstitutional, The Des Moines Register reported.

      Trump called Monday for a “a total and complete shutdown” on Muslims entering the United States. Fiorina responded to Trump’s statement during a campaign stop in Iowa.

      “It’s a violation of our Constitution, but it also undermines the character of our nation,” she told reporters, as quoted by the Des Moines Register. “We stand for religious liberty.”

      “Religious Liberty” lets Muslims come here in droves.

    16. Joe Wooten Says:

      Last night, the wife and I went to a church in Dalton IL to listen to a talk by Ted Cruz’s father Rafael, who is a Baptist Pastor in the Houston area. Rev. Cruz gave a very, very good talk about the Christian foundations of the US. He is an excellent speaker and is very well informed. He is also a very warm friendly man.

      I have absolutely NO fears about the religious angle in a potential Cruz Administration. Both he and his son are well aware of the reason for the first amendment and neither seeks to force any particular religion on anyone in the USA. He did remind everyone that when the secularists talk about you cannot legislate morality, it is always when they a very busy doing just that, pushing their version of morality onto everyone else

    17. Stan Witherspoon Says:

      I was at HP for 26 years (I outlasted Mark Hurd :-). Carly was great at making speeches and coming up with promises and policies and I and a lot of people at HP initially thought she could fix things at HP, but she never delivered. She would make a nice speech and outline a plan, but then we would never hear about it again or what actually was implemented was 180 degrees from the speech and then she was off to the Next Big Thing. She never followed through to finish the job. She used up all of the remainder of the accumulated management good will of Bill & Dave to the point that I heard employees singing “The Witch is Dead” from the “Wizard of Oz” when we heard that the board had fired her. No one was surprised when she went into politics.

    18. Grurray Says:

      I think Hurd basically got lucky. The overall market and economy started recovering just as he took over, so it looked like he turned things around. In reality, had the board kept Fiorina she would’ve looked just as good when profits and stock price inevitably rose. Hurd wasn’t exactly a master strategist either. Remember Palm? That Palm Pre was a real game changer for about 2 minutes. Fiorina bought him the iPAQ which easily could’ve turned into a smart phone, but it withered on the vine too.

      When the market tanked again, Hurd found himself on the outside looking in too. The sad fact is the hardware business was rapidly transforming and old stalwarts like HP couldn’t make the transition no matter who was in charge. That’s the nature of disruption. Meg Whitman has been doing her best just to unwind the whole thing and put it to bed as painlessly as possible.

    19. TangoMan Says:

      Our president should see himself (humbly) in a tradition of honor that goes back to Washington and as the leader of the strongest nation in the world. It should not be someone whose “victory” speech consisted of defending his steaks and water and bizarre “university.” A businessman’s ego can be bound up in his products (I’m not sure that’s a bad thing but it certainly seemed both delusional and incoherent.)

      Will honor get your to the WH? Probably not. The Trump Wine thing is about pushing it into the face of the media who is bashing him about it, it’s a dominance game. Every Republican faces off against Democrats, and Media, but I repeat myself. Democrats have allies in the media, Republicans have avowed enemies. Trump faces a more hostile environment than any candidate before him, even the Pope is arrayed against him. Everything, every, thing, has to be a contest, a fight, he can’t let the media ever get an upper hand. His strategy has been successful thus far, he took out Bush, Walker, Carson, by taking the upper hand. Maybe those guys had honor, but they lost.

      “Religious Liberty” lets Muslims come here in droves.

      There is nothing unconstitutional about a ban on Muslim immigration. Ideological bans have repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court. Religion is but a subset of ideology. You can’t ban the whole but unban a part of the whole.

    20. dearieme Says:

      That’s Cruz doomed then.

    21. Anonymous Says:

      Any strictly religious ban on immigration will be immediately ruled null by the first district judge who gets to rule. A stay will be granted and the ruling will be upheld at the court of appeals and if it goes to the supreme court the ruling will be confirmed, regardless of prior precedents. Is it a tax or a penalty? Legal consistency and fidelity are subordinate to ideological preferences of the progressives.

      That does not mean that effectively the same thing can be achieved by targeting specific ideological tenants divorced from their religious affiliation, such ideology being obviously incompatible with the operation of a representative republic as we know it. Geographical background is also reasonably safe where individual background information is absent or suspect.

      I believe either Cruz or Trump could figure out a way.

      Death6

    22. TangoMan Says:

      Any strictly religious ban on immigration will be immediately ruled null by the first district judge who gets to rule.

      Judges reach faulty decisions all of the time, which is why higher courts overturn the decisions of lower courts.

      Case law supports a religious ban:

      Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the United States Attorney General has the right to refuse somebody’s entry to the United States, as he has been empowered to do so in 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

      This action was brought to compel Attorney General Richard Kleindienst to grant a temporary nonimmigrant visa to a Belgian journalist and Marxian theoretician whom the American plaintiff-appellees, Ernest Mandel et al., had invited to participate in academic conferences and discussions in the US. The alien had been found ineligible for admission under 212 (a) (28) (D) and (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish “the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism.” Kleindienst had declined to waive ineligibility as he has the power to do under 212 (d) of the Act, basing his decision on unscheduled activities engaged in by the alien on a previous visit to the United States, when a waiver was granted.

      Religion is a subset of ideology. There is no logical stumbling block here.

      Government can’t apply restrictions on ideological beliefs held by American citizens, but it sure can apply such restrictions to foreigners who want to enter the US.

    23. Anonymous Says:

      Nice to see the precedent, but I knew the legal argument. In today’s legal system of providing rights warnings and most other protections to aliens, legal and illegal, the 1972 and earlier precedents will be creatively overturned by the Roberts led court if it is specifically and solely based on membership in a religion which has a significant following among US citizens.

      Do you really doubt that is likely? If so you didn’t learn much from the ACA rulings.

      Death6

    24. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      I am not a lawyer and I have no idea how this would play out politically, but I think it would be wise for the US Congress to pass a law declaring islam a violent, totalitarian ideology and forbidding its followers to immigrate to the USA. Personally, I would go so far as to outlaw its practice in the United States.

    25. TangoMan Says:

      That wasn’t the only precedent. I’m not going to look up all of the case law but, IIRC, this has gone before the Supreme Court before and the reasoning of the court is that they don’t want to intervene in what they said was clearly the authority of the executive branch to enforce the border and decide who shall be admitted or denied entry into the US.

      Religious tests are fine and we know this because of policies which were aimed specifically at Russian Jews and gave them preferred entry.

      What Michael is arguing is the position I too would advocate. Ever politician thus far has treated Islam as a religion modeled on the Christian model, meaning it’s treated like Catholicism, or Methodism, or Anglicanism, or Pentacostalism rather than as a totalitarian system for managing society.

    26. Anonymous Says:

      I would certainly support something of that effect to keep out the terrorists and preserve our western values as derived from a Judeo-Christian heritage. But I have no doubt it would take a constitutional amendment to keep it in force and immune from the present and likely future SCOTUS nullification. The distinction with Islam is that it is a political and legal ideology wrapped in a veneer of a religion requiring a theocracy and a universal one at that. This ideology is incompatible with individual liberty as we understand it and seeks to subjugate those who refuse to convert, by violence as required.

      So called “moderate Muslims” are heretics as viewed by Muslims who take their doctrines seriously. This gives the true believers license to ravage them as well when the opportunity is right. Under such pressure, moderates are pressured to become more devout which is highly correlated with terrorism and genocide.

      What to do about those Muslims already citizens is a tough one. As Rubio noted, some have served honorably in the military and suffered wounds and even death. Citizenship should be a much more thorough educational and screening process. Those already here could only be repatriated or at least have their citizenship revoked based on individual transgressions. It probably wouldn’t take long for many of the moderates here to realize they need to make a commitment to our culture and its defining institutions after the true believers are dealt with as they pop-up to be made examples. Probably wouldn’t happen in the short term, but that’s better than continuing to lose ground.

      Death6

    27. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Islam is an ideology with religion as only a single component. And even regarding an exception for the religious component, we allow limited exceptions curtailing public speech on the grounds that it incites to violence or riot. The entire religion of islam incites its followers to violence and crime.

    28. TangoMan Says:

      Islam is an ideology with religion as only a single component.

      Right. You can recreate the Islamic model by taking something like Nazism and slapping worship of Odin onto it or taking Communism and slapping a worship of Saint Karl, supreme deity, onto it.

      You think that the Supreme Court is going to allow a full flowering of Nazism to bloom in the US by allowing worldwide Nazi immigration to the US, under the protection of religious liberty doctrine simply because Nazis now worship Odin?

      What to do about those Muslims already citizens is a tough one.

      The first rules of holes is that when you find yourself in one, stop digging. Muslim ban on immigration.

      Once accomplished, then we assess. Either we live with their small presence or we work to decrease their presence. Some will leave voluntarily. Others we could incentivize with emigration rewards. A big step forward would be to redefine Islam as a non-religion, thus removing many civil right protections from Muslims. To my understanding employers and landlords have the right to deny employment or lodging to Nazis because ideology is not a protected class.

      Those already here could only be repatriated or at least have their citizenship revoked based on individual transgressions.

      Look at how we strip citizenship from German immigrants who had some intersection with the Nazi Party in Germany. Strict scrutiny of already processed citizenship applications will likely reveal little inconsistencies and they give grounds to revoke citizenship. Make no mistake, this is a rough and tough road to tred. It might not be necessary if people are willing to accept some risk of being blown up by Muslims.

      Probably wouldn’t happen in the short term, but that’s better than continuing to lose ground.

      This is the key point. A commitment to American principles, based on a European-Christian historical foundation, transplanted over to a multicultural-multireligious world, results in a hands-off approach, which yields steady growth in the Muslim population. America went from 1% Hispanic to 17% in half a century. Presently, Hispanics represent 26% of children entering kindergarten. This was NOT PLANNED and the people never consented. A hands-off approach with respect to Muslims will see the US growing its Muslim population. France is, I believe, at about 7% Muslim level, and look at how their society has transformed. What will the US be like when we’re 25% Muslim? I don’t want to leave that society to my children, so I prefer to deal this issue when it’s like a freckle of skin cancer rather than an unchecked skin cancer.

    29. scrapebox footprints Says:

      The next thing to optimize for is the content on your website.
      Our SEO professional can increase website ranking in major search engines.
      Solicit customer testimonials and provide a page for them.
      They shouldn’t appear forward for guidance for petty items.

      This passive income source can make you millions in the quickest possible time.
      * Budget – Usually do not hire the extremely very first business that you encounter throughout your search.