Will there be a contested convention in Cleveland? Will Ted Cruz win it?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and Heidi Cruz
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and Heidi Cruz

A lot of people are asking me what Cruz chances are to defeat Trump and win the nomination. I’m going to look at three columns, one from radically leftist CNN, one from the radically leftist Washington Post, and one from National Review. I found both of these stories at the Conservatives 4 Ted Cruz news aggregator, by the way. I check that site at least twice a day, and so should you.

The first one is from David Gergen at CNN. David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been a White House adviser to four presidents. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he is a professor of public service and co-director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School.

His headline is “Ted Cruz: Now the odds-on favorite”:

With his decisive victory in Wisconsin, Sen. Ted Cruz has not only shaken up the Republican presidential race, but heading into the homestretch, he has suddenly become the odds-on favorite to win the nomination in Ohio.

With 16 primaries and caucuses remaining, Donald Trump has to win 70% of the delegates to secure the 1,237 needed to win a first ballot at the Republican convention. Several states are coming up that are more favorable territory for Trump than Cruz, especially New York and Pennsylvania where Trump still has significant leads.

Even so, winning more than two thirds of the remaining delegates is a daunting challenge for him. In the 36 primaries and caucuses leading up to Wisconsin, Trump won only 46% of the delegates. And now he heads down a tough homestretch with Cruz seizing the momentum.

In a year crammed with surprises, no one can say for sure what will unfold in Cleveland, Ohio. But there are two likely outcomes: First, Cruz and Trump have each vowed to vote against a change in the GOP’s Rule 40. That’s an obscure provision that requires any candidate to win at least eight primaries and caucuses before he or she can be nominated.

Trump and Cruz will be the only two people in Cleveland with that distinction. They should also have enough delegate strength between them to block a rewrite of Rule 40. In other words, potential candidates like John Kasich, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney won’t be eligible even if many delegates think them likely to fare better against Hillary Clinton — the race could narrow to Trump vs. Cruz.

If Trump then falls short on the first ballot, there will be a donnybrook. But it is now becoming apparent that Cruz is much better prepared to win that fight. Trump has run a campaign long on the outside game of televised rallies but short on the inside game of quietly piling up delegates.

By contrast, Cruz has been superlative playing to the inside. Just look at how craftily he captured delegates away from Trump a few days ago in North Dakota. (The capacity of the Obama team to play the inside game so well helped to propel them past Hillary Clinton in 2008.)

In a first ballot, delegates must vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged but thereafter, of course, may vote for someone else. Signs increasingly point to the fact that Republican party regulars pledged to Trump are ready to bolt on a second or third ballot. With Cruz the only other man in the race, that almost certainly means they will drift — rush? –toward the Texan, and he will take the crown.

That’s an accurate analysis. The most likely scenario now is that Cruz capitalizes on his momentum to deny Trump the delegates he needs to get to 1,237 before the convention, then wins the nomination on round 2 or later, when the GOP delegates from each state become “unbound”. And Cruz is already reaching out to the delegates to make sure that they choose him in round 2 and later rounds, as they free up.

Can Cruz win a contested convention?

 

Now, I’m going to balance that with something hilarious from moderate conservative Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist George Will, writing in National Review.

Will’s column is entitled “Ted Cruz Is Surging by Design”:

People here at Ted Cruz’s campaign headquarters are meticulously preparing to win a contested convention, if there is one. Because Donald Trump is a low-energy fellow, Cruz will be positioned to trounce him in Cleveland, where Trump’s slide toward earned oblivion would accelerate during a second ballot.

[…]For months Cruz’s national operation has been courting all convention delegates, including Trump’s. Cruz aims to make a third ballot decisive, or unnecessary.

On the eve of Wisconsin’s primary, the analytics people here knew how many undecided voters were choosing between Cruz and Trump (32,000) and how many between Cruz and John Kasich (72,000), and where they lived. Walls here are covered with notes outlining every step of each state’s multistage delegate-selection process. (Cruz’s campaign was active in Michigan when the process of selecting persons eligible to be delegates began in August 2014.) Cruz’s campaign is nurturing relationships with delegates now committed to Trump and others. In Louisiana’s primary, 58.6 percent of voters favored someone other than Trump; Cruz’s campaign knows which issues are particularly important to which Trump delegates, and Cruz people with similar values are talking to them.

[…]Usually, more than 40 percent of delegates to Republican conventions are seasoned activists who have attended prior conventions. A large majority of all delegates are officeholders — county commissioners, city council members, sheriffs, etc. — and state party officials. They tend to favor presidential aspirants who have been Republicans for longer than since last Friday.

Trump is a world-class complainer (he is never being treated “fairly”) but a bush-league preparer. A nomination contest poses policy and process tests, and he is flunking both.

Regarding policy, he is flummoxed by predictable abortion questions because he has been pro-life for only 15 minutes, and because he has lived almost seven decades without giving a scintilla of thought to any serious policy question. Regarding process, Trump, who recently took a week-long vacation from campaigning, has surfed a wave of free media to the mistaken conclusion that winning a nomination involves no more forethought than he gives to policy. He thinks he can fly in, stroke a crowd’s ideological erogenous zones, then fly away. He knows nothing about the art of the political deal.

The nomination process, says Jeff Roe, Cruz’s campaign manager, “is a multilevel Rubik’s Cube. Trump thought it was a golf ball — you just had to whack it.” Roe says the Cruz campaign’s engagement with the granular details of delegate maintenance is producing a situation where “the guy who is trying to hijack the party runs into a guy with a machine gun.”

Cruz graduated at the top of his classes at Princeton and Harvard Law. He clerked for Court of Appeals Justice J. Michael Luttig and Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Insofar as this primary election is a contest based on hard work and preparation, Cruz will win it. And then he’s going to beat Hillary.

Pro-abortion attorney general raids home of Planned Parenthood whistleblower

Planned Parenthood senior executive: organ harvesting so she can get a Lamborghini
Planned Parenthood senior executive: organ harvesting so she can get a Lamborghini

LIfe News reports:

The pro-abortion California attorney general’s office raided on Tuesday the home of the undercover investigator who exposed Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of aborted babies’ body parts, according to the Center for Medical Progress.

David Daleiden, the head of the Center for Medical Progress, has been a target of abortion activists and their political friends ever since he released the first undercover video last summer showing a top Planned Parenthood official discussing the sale of aborted babies’ body parts. Since then, CMP has released a dozen undercover videos of the abortion giant’s employees and partner research groups, exposing their horrendous baby body parts trade. However, pro-abortion politicians have been ignoring the evidence of wrong-doing at Planned Parenthood and attacking CMP instead.

Daleiden released the following statement about the raid of his California home:

Today (Tuesday), the California Attorney General’s office of Kamala Harris, who was elected with tens of thousands of dollars from taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood, seized all video footage showing Planned Parenthood’s criminal trade in aborted baby parts, in addition to my personal information.

Ironically, while seizing my First Amendment work product, they ignored documents showing the illicit scheme between StemExpress and Planned Parenthood. This is no surprise–Planned Parenthood’s bought-and-paid-for AG has steadfastly refused to enforce the law against the baby body parts traffickers in our state, or even investigate them–while at the same time doing their bidding to harass and intimidate citizen journalists. We will pursue all remedies to vindicate our First Amendment rights.

Rachele Huennekens, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General Kamala Harris, told CBS DFW that she could not comment on any ongoing investigation.

Harris, a Democrat who is running for U.S. Senate, is endorsed by the pro-abortion National Organization for Women. NOW describes her as a “longtime, vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood” who promised to investigate the Center for Medical Progress and fight for taxpayer funding of the abortion business.

This story reminds me of how the IRS treated conservative and Christian groups differently from liberal groups. It’s not the big oil company who hold up your application for non-profit status because you’re a conservative. It’s big government. That’s who has real power over you.

What is the solution?

One question you have to ask yourself is why the Democrats are so interested in helping out Planned Parenthood. The answer to that question is simple. The Democrats give the Planned Parenthood the taxpayer money. The Planned Parenthood uses the taxpayer money to start the abortion clinics to make more money. The Planned Parenthood gives the Democrats some of their profits as political contributions. If the Planned Parenthood goes out of business, then the political donations to the Democrats will stop. So, when the investigative journalists threaten the flow of political contributions to the Democrats, then the Democrats attack the investigative journalists.

Who is trying to solve the problem?

The Republican party tries to de-fund Planned Parenthood so that they don’t have any more money to perform abortions and then give the Democrats political contributions.

Here was a recent attempt described in Life News.

It says:

The House of Representatives voted today for legislation that would temporarily de-fund Planned Parenthood while an investigation continues into it s sale of aborted babies and their body parts.

The House voted 241 to 187 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business and 3 Democrats joining them. Three Republicans voted against the defunding bill while 183 Democrats voted against it.

Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican who is the pro-life lawmaker sponsoring the legislation and a nurse for more than 40 years, sponsored the legislation. The bill would freeze Planned Parenthood funding for one year while Congress conducts an investigation into its sales of aborted babies. The House vote would follow one the Senate had weeks ago, which saw Senate Democrats filibuster and block legislation to revoke $550 million in taxpayer funding. The Senate is expected to vote soon on a second attempt to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

A new Congressional report finds that de-funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business — even for one year — would save “several thousand” unborn babies from the nightmare of abortion. The report also finds de-funding Planned Parenthood would save the federal government $235 million.

During the debate, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy spoke on the House floor in defense of innocent human life and urged his colleagues to put a moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding in light of its barbaric practices.

“So if we know that this organization performs hundreds of thousands of abortions per year and we know that women have access to other sources for care, the question is, should we force taxpayers to fund a business that spends its money aborting 327,653 children per year?  Should we force taxpayers to fund an organization whose barbaric practices, as vividly shown in those videos, disregard and devalue the sanctity of the most innocent human lives?” he asked.

He added: “There is no reason—absolutely no reason—that we must choose between funding women’s health and compelling taxpayers to support abortion.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) talked about how Planned Parenthood is not in the business of women’s health care and is really just an abortion company.

[…]“In the history of Planned Parenthood, they have never, ever, ever done one mammogram, because they are not certified to do mammograms. They bring people in and refer them out to get their mammograms. So, for those of us –like in my case, three daughters and a wife of 37 years –look, I want good women’s healthcare. So, let’s fund it,” he said. “But, let’s give it directly to the facilities that will do the mammograms and not Planned Parenthood – for them to take their cut.”

President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto the bill.

Hillary Clinton also spoke out in favor of for-profit organ-harvesting from born-alive children.

After today’s House vote to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Hillary Clinton took to twitter to adamantly defend taxpayer funding for the abortion company.

The Republicans also want to hold Planned Parenthood criminally responsible for performing abortions on born-alive babies.

This was also reported on by Life News:

The House of Representatives today approved a pro-life bill that would hold the Planned Parenthood abortion business criminally liable for harvesting body parts from aborted babies who are technically still alive.

The center for Medical Progress has released 10 videos catching and exposing Planned Parenthood officials selling aborted babies and their body parts. One of the most shocking videos caught the nation’s biggest abortion business harvesting the brain of an aborted baby who was still alive.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by pro-life Congressman Trent Franks would make failure to provide standard medical care to children born alive during an abortion a federal crime.  It would also apply stronger penalties in cases where an overt act is taken to kill the abortion survivor.

[…]Congressman Chris Smith implored the House to pass the bill.

“Undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress have again brought into sharp focus that some babies actually survive abortion,” the New jersey congressman said.

“Dr. Savita Ginde, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains says ‘sometimes we get—if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure—they are intact…’  that is, Madame Speaker,  born alive. Breathing, crying, gasping for air. One fetal tissue broker describes on the video watching a ‘fetus …just fall out.’ And left to die.”

“We have a duty to protect these vulnerable children from violence, exploitation and death. Humanitarian due diligence requires that born alive babies be taken to a hospital to obtain care and enhance prospects of survival,” Smith added. “Abortion clinics have no incentive whatsoever to save the child. Abortion clinics do not have neonatal intensive care units—they are in the business of killing babies, not saving them.”

“The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504), authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age.  This legislation builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important enforcement provisions,” he concluded.

The House voted 248 to 177 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill and 5 Democrats joining them. No Republicans voted against the pro-life bill while 177 Democrats voted against it. One member voted present.

A pro-life Senator says he will introduce the Senate version of the bill on Monday. Senator Ben Sasse told LifeNews.com that he will introduce companion legislation in the Senate when Congress resumes its work on Monday.

He said: “If this isn’t the most non-controversial sentence in American politics, it’s time to check our national conscience: newborn babies must receive care and attention. Societies are judged by how we care for the vulnerable and surely anyone with a heart— regardless of where they stand on the abortion debate— should be able to agree that our laws should protect newborns. I’m grateful that a bipartisan majority of the House stood up for babies and I look forward to introducing companion legislation in the Senate next week.”

Despite passage of the bill, the Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the measure.

There were a lot of “pro-life” people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I personally spoke to young evangelicals who claimed to be pro-life who but voted for Obama to stop global warming and to get condoms and free health care. Maybe next time we have an election, the pro-life people can vote pro-life for a change. Even if the Democrat is really, really good-looking, and has likability, and a nice way of speaking – let’s still vote pro-life, even then.

What are all the big liberal corporations trying to protect in North Carolina?

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

So, North Carolina passed a law that says that in the state of North Carolina, people with male equipment have to use a male bathroom, and people with female equipment have to use a female bathroom.

Lots of corporations have come out against this law, as AMAC explains:

Here’s a list of companies that have come out against the newly signed law:

Salesforce, Bank of America, American Airlines, Microsoft, Apple, RedHat, PayPal, Google, Lowe’s Home Improvement, NBA, NCAA, MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), Disney, ESPN, Marvel, Facebook, Charlotte Motor Speedway, BB&T Ballpark, Biogen, DOW Chemical Company, Citrix, Bayer, NC Policy Watch, IBM, Burt’s Bees, Duke University, Wake Forest University, SAS Institute.

And here is one typical response from one company – Pay Pal. The leftist Washington Post reports:

The backlash against a North Carolina law that bars local governments from extending civil rights protections to gay and transgender people continued Tuesday, with PayPal saying it is abandoning plans to expand into Charlotte in response to the legislation.

This decision came just weeks after PayPal, the California-based online payments firm spun off from eBay, said it would open a global operations center in Charlotte, a move that state officials said would bring millions to the local economy and employ 400 people.

I note that Pay Pal does business in many, many countries where homosexuality is illegal, and many, many other countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. They aren’t making a fuss about those countries, though. They’re just making a fuss in North Carolina. That’s called hypocrisy, and most big corporations are actually like Pay Pal – not conservative in any way shape or form.

The WaPo article also notes:

This law could also cost the state federal funding. At least five federal agencies are debating whether to withhold money because of the law.

So, that’s what happens when you pay taxes to the federal government, and why we need to get the government out of anything that is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

The champion of the big pro-gay corporations

Anyway, now that we understand what those big corporations stand for, let’s take a look at who they are enabling. Let’s go to Canada, which is further down the road of sexual anarchy and moral relativism, and see how things are working out there.

Here is the article from the Toronto Sun:

A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.

Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — was a dangerous offender.

The judge said he imposed the indefinite prison sentence because there’s a great risk that Hambrook will commit more sex crimes and require strict supervision if he returns to the community.

[…]He noted the Montreal man, 37, attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.

How could a man dress up as a woman and be allowed into a women’s space with women’s bathrooms and women’s showers?

Life Site News explains:

Ontario amended its Human Rights Code to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” prohibited grounds for discrimination in 2012.

[…]Family advocates argued at the time that the NDP sponsored bill would create a legal right for a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to use rooms and facilities intended for women so as to exploit women.

The bill was subsequently dubbed the “bathroom bill” by its critics.

And what did the transgender man do with that law? This:

[The] Court also heard evidence of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard.

The same deaf women reported that Hambrook would peer at her through a gap between the door and its frame while she showered.

And you can see similar problems already in liberal states like Washington:

In 2012 a college in Washington state decided it would not prevent a 45-year-old man who presents himself as a transgender “female” from lounging naked in a women’s locker room in an area frequented by girls as young as six. Teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw “Colleen” Francis deliberately exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna. Police told one outraged mother that the university could not bar the biological male from the premises.

The Daily Wire reports that the University of Toronto, which is a city in the province of Ontario, is now partially reversing itself on their transgender agenda:

The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of “voyeurism” were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.

Conservatives like me try to say that it’s a bad situation when men can walk into women’s change rooms, and walk around naked near women who are showering, going to the bathroom or changing clothes. But the big corporations disagree, they want biological men in women’s spaces, and all the better if clothes are coming on and off.  When the big corporations make these sorts of stands in favor of “inclusiveness” and “diversity”, it’s important to know what it is they really value. And what they don’t value, too.

In a previous post, I explained that the lead architect (pictured above) of the Charlotte legislation that allowed men to walk around naked in women’s bathrooms and showers was himself on a sex-offender registry. And that’s where all of these big corporations out to be put as well. On the sex-offender registry.