Words of Truth

I came across this hit piece article today.  The article’s title, “Cruz showing a sharp right turn on immigration” implies that Cruz has changed his position on immigration.  Having heard Cruz state that he has never supported amnesty (taking illegal immigrants and making them legal citizens, in effect, rewarding them for breaking the law), I wondered if there was any truth to the claim of this article.  So I read it.

Nope.

Turns out it’s just another hit piece, carefully crafted and worded just so to state that Cruz used to support amnesty but no longer does.  But when you look at the facts, which are stubborn things, you see that this is not true at all.  Let’s examine the article.

1. The article states, “Cruz once advised a White House working group that crafted President George W. Bush’s ultimately unsuccessful 2004 immigration overhaul, which sought to offer temporary work visas to millions of people in the country illegally.”
So we are to believe that, because Cruz gave advice to a group that was for amnesty, Cruz is for amnesty.  Sorry, but that’s not logical.

2. “He also was Texas state chairman of a conservative Hispanic organization that advocated for Bush’s proposal.” So because Cruz was a member of a group of people which, at one point advocated for Bush’s proposal which did not offer amnesty, we’re supposed to believe Cruz was in favor of amnesty?  This is ludicrous.  It’s like saying Mark Fields, the CEO of Ford Motor Company, is a Nazi sympathizer because Henry Ford did business with the Nazis.

3. “And, in the Senate in 2013, Cruz sought to amend a sweeping immigration overhaul carried by one of his now presidential rivals, Marco Rubio. Cruz wanted to remove the possibility of obtaining U.S. citizenship, but didn’t touch language allowing for a pathway to legal immigration status for those here illegally.”  
Ok, this one is complicated, and it’s unfortunate that Megyn Kelly and Fox News decided they were going to push this story as true.  I believe this was dishonest, because during the debate they stated that Cruz added an amendment to the bill supporting amnesty, but right after the debate Megyn Kelly sat down with Ted Cruz and admitted to him that she read the information about the amendment, and she thought it was obvious that the amendment was a “poison pill” meant to kill the bill.

And so the three statements in this article meant to prove that Ted Cruz used to support amnesty for illegal immigrants are without merit and totally false.  This author is just another yellow journalist bent on selling a certain narrative at the expense of the truth. Whether you support Ted Cruz or not, I just thought you should know the facts. He wants people to come to this country legally, not illegally.

Just another indicator that we should read things carefully and make sure they are backed up with facts.

Let me translate this article for you.

After wasting five decades, scientists announced that they have proved something that Einstein told them existed 100 years ago. A group of people from at least two countries said they spent over a billion dollars to build a machine to test Einstein’s theory. When asked for comment, one of the scientists said, “This is amazing! We spent a ton of time and money listening for these waves, and now that we’ve heard them, we can listen some more! These waves can teach us so much about the universe!”  When asked what exactly, he was predictably vague.  “All sorts of stuff about things and science!”

The article then gave credence to the discovery by referencing the fact that Einstein’s theory was referenced in two fictional movie series, which are not based on reality.

When asked what practical use humans could have for this discovery, the scientists said, “Well, nothing really, but it’s great that we get to keep spending money looking at stuff!”

I watched the following video and laughed several times. (Language warning: there are a few curse words bleeped out and one off color reference after the America’s Got Talent clip). This John Oliver guy has some funny stuff. I agreed with some of the things he was saying, but there’s one glaring error in his main argument (that Americans living in Puerto Rico, Guam, etc should be allowed to vote and be represented in Congress). The problem with his argument is found in the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of our country.

Let me quote the relevant passages from the Constitution, with some emphasis added:

Article 1 section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several STATES…”

Article 1 section 3: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each STATE,”

Article 1 section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each STATE by the Legislature thereof…”

Article 2 section 1: “Each STATE shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the STATE may be entitled in the Congress…”

Article 4 section 2: “The Citizens of each STATE shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Article 5: “…and that no STATE, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate”

12th amendment: “The Electors shall meet in their respective STATES, and vote by ballot for President …”

14th amendment section 2: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several STATES according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each STATE, excluding Indians not taxed.”

16th amendment: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each STATE”

Did you notice anything? Only STATES get to vote for President. Only STATES get represented in Congress. Well, there’s one exception to this: Washington DC, which has its own amendment (the 23rd) providing for this very thing.

So no, Puerto Ricans don’t get to vote for President of the United States. People in Saipan don’t get to vote in the Senate or the House of Representatives. Why? Because they aren’t citizens of a STATE.

You know what other Americans didn’t get to vote for President? Americans living in territories that weren’t states yet, like the “Oklahoma territory,” “Iowa Territory,” Louisiana Territory.” They didn’t get to vote until they became states. That’s why “statehood” was such a big deal to the people in these territories. If these territories become states, then they get to vote. It’s that simple. In the 1844 Presidential election, not one Iowan vote was counted. Iowa became a state December 28, 1846. In the 1848 Presidential election, Iowan votes counted, because Iowa was now a state. There are people now in the United States territories that would like their homeland to become a state in the United States, but it hasn’t happened because they can’t get a majority of their neighbors to agree with them.

Guam? There is a registry of native inhabitants of Guam that requires 70% participation from the qualified inhabitants (I’m assuming they get the total number of native inhabitants from a census) before a change in their political status (from territory to state) can even be considered. As of July of last year (the most recent information I could find), they have just over 9,000 people on the registry. They need over 35,000 to hit 70%. Right now they’re at 17%. To conclude Guam’s story, the people of Guam have the means to become a state, but they are actively choosing NOT to participate in the process whereby they could even consider becoming a state

Puerto Rico? The residents of PR were given a referendum in 1998 (which means every citizen of PR got one vote) which had five options:
1. Statehood
2. Limited self-government
3. Free association
4. Sovereignty
5. None of the above.
Guess which one won. Yep, “None of the above” got 50.5% of the vote. So a majority of voting citizens of PR want everything to stay just like it is. Granted, 46.6% voted for statehood, but that’s not enough.

They held another referendum in 2012 in which the people were asked two questions:
1. Should PR continue its current territorial status?
2. Which non-territorial option do you prefer: statehood, free association, or independence?

The people of PR voted with 54% of the vote on question one being “no,” and 61.16% on question 2 being “Statehood.” So it appears they finally have a majority. I think removing the “none of the above” probably helped. I have said in the past that I believe “none of the above” should be automatically included in all elections, and if “none of the above” wins, hold a new election, with totally different candidates. Repeat until you get a good one.

But will Puerto Rico become the 51st state? Evidently there is still political fighting going on between those who want statehood and those who don’t. And do we really want the 51st state to be a state where half the citizens don’t want to be part of the United States? Why invite trouble like that? If the people of Puerto Rico had an overwhelming majority of “yes to statehood” votes (like, say over 66%), then I would be all for welcoming them into the United States, which would give them a vote in the Presidential elections, representation in Congress, and two senators.

Until that day, no vote for you!

I’ve never had much of an interest in the American Civil War.  But recently I’ve done some research into my ancestry and found out that two of my ancestors fought in it, so the history is suddenly more interesting.

My great-great-great-grandfather Solomon Cunningham served in the Union army. For those of you in my family, this would be my great-grandpa Bernie’s grandfather.

Solomon Cunningham joined the 16th regiment of the Iowa volunteer infantry January 5th,1862 when he was 39 years old. His 23 year old brother Maximillian had joined Dec 23rd, 1861. They were both Privates in Company D, and fought in the Battle of Shiloh in April 1862 as part of the Army of the Tennessee under Ulysses S. Grant. Then the Union army moved a few miles south to take the railhead at Corinth, Mississippi, and that’s where they died, in the Siege of Corinth (First Battle of Corinth), Maximillian on May 16th and Solomon on the 17th. According to an article in the Muscatine Journal, both men were wounded, but died of malaria. The sad part about Solomon’s death (other than the obvious) was that he left his 29-year old widow Agnes with a 9 year old son, a 7 year old son, a 5 year old daughter, and a 2 year old daughter.  What’s more was that Agnes was pregnant.  Her fifth child George was born September 21st, and died a month later.   If George was born around his due date, then he was conceived somewhere around Christmas.  Solomon didn’t muster (join the troops) until January 28th, 1862, and it’s likely they didn’t find out Agnes was pregnant until after he had joined.  How horrible for Agnes to get the news that her husband had died when she was five months pregnant.  I’m sure there were many stories like that during our nation’s bloodiest war, but this one was from my family. My great-great-grandfather Robert was the 7 year old.   Agnes never remarried, and died at the age of 65.

Agnes Cunningham

Here is an interesting passage I read about Solomon’s first battle (The Battle of Shiloh) in “Roster and Record of Iowa Troops In the Rebellion, Vol. 2” By Guy E. Logan:

The experience gained by the regiment in this great battle was invaluable. In the numerous battles in which it was subsequently engaged it had the advantage of the training and drill which it had not received before the battle of Shiloh, but it was never afterwards placed in a position in which the bravery and fortitude of the officers and men received a more thorough test. It was the common experience of all soldiers that their first battle, no matter how favorable the conditions under which it was fought, was the severest test to their courage. At Shiloh the conditions under which the Sixteenth Iowa went into action were most unfavorable. The impression its men received, the moment they left the boat and formed in line of battle, was that the enemy was successful on every part of the battlefield; and this impression was sustained as they marched to the front and met large numbers of wounded being taken to the rear, also many demoralized and panic-stricken soldiers who had not been wounded but had deserted their regiments in the face of the enemy and sought safety in flight. The fact that the men of this new and untried regiment did not become infected with the feeling of panic, but marched steadily forward and went into that hell of battle with the coolness of veterans, fought until the only alternative was retreat or surrender, and afterwards rallied to their colors and rendered important service until the close of the battle, entitles them to a place in the front rank as heroic soldiers. In its subsequent history the record made at Shiloh was fully maintained but, in the judgment of the compiler, never surpassed.

Now I want to learn more about the Battles of Shiloh and Corinth.