POPE FRANCIS, AMERICA, AND SOCIALISM

 

 

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
September 27, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

 

Dear Pope Francis:

 

It must be a very difficult line to walk when you visit countries like Cuba which enslave their people with a communist form of government. Or countries like America which has killed more than 50 million babies in their mother’s womb.

 

As the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, you must question how to use your visits to such nations to the benefit of all people while making every effort to not offend yet not support the governments of these and other nations. It must be very difficult. I tremendously enjoyed and appreciated your visit to America... but have some questions and ideas.

 

When will the Vatican begin accepting immigrants who run away from chaos and tyranny, from death and destruction, to seek asylum in a country safer than the war-torn piece of land they seek to leave? Surely you would not suggest other nations make sacrifices that are unacceptable to your own? What will your reaction be when Muslims – most of the ones departing the Middle East appear to be young men, not families – demand “their part of the Vatican” (or Detroit or London or Paris) be governed by Sharia Law?

 

You appear to be a gentle and humble man. Everyone says you are truly kind and thoughtful – a holy man -- and I’m sure there is no hypocrisy in your desire for Americans and people of other nations to accept immigrants from the Middle East and for the Vatican to accept none. Thus, I’m confident you will open your doors... or, at the very least, use your influence to get governments around the world to open buildings owned by the Catholic Church so Muslim immigrants can move in and enjoy freedom and Muslim worship services.

 

Impossible, you say? It would disrupt the ability of the Catholic Church to function and serve the 1.2 billion Catholics who rely on Mother Church for their salvation? What, Holy Father, do you think accepting Muslims running from tyranny or Mexicans running from drug cartels does to the American and other governments? What do you think it does to average Americans when illegals from Mexico cost taxpayers $2.50 for every $1.00 they, as a group, provide in taxes? It disrupts our ability to function. It tears families apart when jobs lost to illegal Mexican workers cost American families their homes.

 

In all humility, I suggest you stop telling others to do that which you are not prepared to do. It damages your credibility.

 

I may be wrong, but wasn’t it the hypocrisy of the highest-ranking Jewish authorities that allowed (or even perhaps encouraged) the purchase of doves and “soul-saving” memorabilia to be sold on the steps of God’s Temple in Jerusalem? It caused Jesus Christ to lose His temper (the only time I believe He displayed anger) and throw the merchants who would market the Lord as if He were a product made by Proctor and Gamble or Microsoft from their Temple lemonade stands. “Oh, ye hypocrites!” were, I believe, Christ's exact words.

 

Holy Father, I hold you in great regard and respect. I would, however, encourage you to contemplate about things you don’t know you don’t know. I truly believe you are a good and gentle man of God who takes your role as Vicar of Christ with great humility and responsibility. I also think you believe you know things you do not know.

 

I encourage you to meditate on the word prelest... according to Bishop Ignatius of the Russian Orthodox Church it means “spiritual deception.” To be specific, I would suggest you ponder the words “legal immigration” and “illegal immigration” and the negative impact of illegals on the lawful citizens of any nation... often threatening the survival of the lawful to offer survival to the unlawful. Is that the Catholic objective?

 

As a former Catholic, I am well aware that the Church’s Catechism teaches that when people migrate from one nation to another their primary obligation is to obey the laws of their new homeland. Holy Father, how can the Catholic Church support illegal aliens who enter America by violating our laws (and the Catholic Catechism)? Is it even reasonable to tell Americans to welcome them when they are taking construction and other jobs from our own citizens who are out of work? Are you not inflating the value of those who accept the tyranny of corruption in their own land and flee it while deflating the value of those who work hard to support their families? Illegals come from poor nations and are willing to work for lower wages which takes jobs from others. This is nothing more than a ploy to redistribute wealth... a stand that suggests the Church has the approval of God to say who succeeds and who fails in life, whose families will prosper and whose will not. How can you justify that?

I am open to any answer you – or political Catholics like John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi – might offer provided it is not a political answer or a lie or lacks respect for the Constitution of the United States which disallows illegal immigration. Our legal immigration laws are the most generous in the world.

 

I understand the Catholic Church would like more Latinos in America because the poor to our South – Mexico and Central and South America – are Catholic (which increases the number of Catholics in America and strengthens the Church here). I go to Mass occasionally and every time I go I listen to the priest tell the faithful in attendance to welcome illegals. Until the Church rewrites its own Catechism about immigrants obeying the new homeland’s laws this message should cease. It is hypocritical to teach one thing while concurrently supporting its opposite.

 

Why do you suppose Muslim immigrants seek shelter only in the Christian world and not in other Muslim nations? Their governments have vowed to destroy Christianity and the nations that consider themselves Christian. Could it be a plot? I can understand why you might not be able to consider such a thing... perhaps plots are beneath the Vatican? Were I not aware of Opus Dei and P2, I might believe that.

 

I hope the Catholic Church and the thousands of priests who serve Mother Church give more and deeper thought to the damage done when people do not stand up to tyrannical governments and fight to remove them from power. By telling Catholics worldwide to welcome illegal aliens, the Church enables and even encourages those who run – but the greater good is best served by standing up to the tyranny from which they flee.

 

Too often, Americans forget they would not have this beautiful nation called America had our Founding Fathers not done that. They did not run to Canada or Mexico or South America (or Cuba) when King George put the boot of tyranny on their necks and wanted to enslave them to a British government. A rag-tag Army stood and fought the biggest and best-trained military in the world at that time – and they won. They understood that “When, in the course of human events...” a government becomes tyrannical, citizens worthy of freedom stand and fight that government.

 

The next logical question must be asked: If a person is not willing to stand and fight – not sit and become informed, not pray for guidance, but stand and fight for freedom while becoming informed and praying for guidance – is such a person worthy of freedom? Or is such a person more compatible with the dictates of slavery? What is slavery if not tyranny? One is a slave when forced to take vaccinations, for example. One is a slave when their freedom to live by the dictates of their religious faith places them in jail. One does not have to be forced into the cotton fields to be a slave. One can be an American who loses his or her job because government chooses not to protect its borders... jobs lost to illegal aliens causes a loss of home and family.

 

Today encroaching slavery results from governments that encourage young women to have children out of wedlock by providing support, increasing payment for every illegitimate and fatherless child they bring into the world which, in turn, guarantees a life of poverty – comfortable poverty. In America, about 70 percent of black babies born are born to unwed mothers who will raise this child and others they will have by coveting the money of their neighbors to support what is now defined as the new American family. You say the Church supports the family... yet you ignore the core cause for the loss of family: Welfare – which is, of course, another means of redistributing wealth (a socialist view) which you support.

 

I appreciated your comments about the need to support and save the concept of family... it would be helpful for you to define your terms. How does the Catholic Church define “family’?

 

And I appreciated your comments about the need to protect human life from the moment it is conceived until God takes that human life home. It would have been helpful had you added “from the moment it is conceived in its mother’s womb” because liberal Catholics who support abortion say they do not believe a fetus is a living human being. They think a twig that will one day grow to be a tree is a tree and should be protected, but not a baby in its mother’s womb. Nancy Pelosi is open about declaring her Catholic faith... and she and other liberal progressives consistently vote to support Planned Parenthood. The Church in no way penalizes them for their role in the death of these most innocents of the innocent.

 

If Your Holiness has not viewed the video tapes of people affiliated with Planned Parenthood laughing while the bones of an aborted baby are being crunched in the background so the liver and kidneys and heart and lungs can be "harvested" to sell in the marketplace, I hope you do watch it. If doves angered Jesus, I can only imagine His reaction to these barbarians.

My government uses my tax dollars to support Planned Parenthood, thus putting the blood of those innocents on every American’s hands. That is another definition of slavery to a political system run morally amok.

 

You are correct in calling the American system of economics “crony capitalism.” Though the American media sought to suggest that because you were raised in a South American nation you have little insight into the difference of the crony capitalism in Argentina and the capitalism we have in America. “We don’t have crony capitalism here,” said the media after your comments about America's crony capitalism and the redistribution of wealth.

 

Yes. We do. However, crony capitalism in America is quite different from crony socialist capitalism in various South American nations. Both are forms of slavery, but the solution to each is quite different. In America, the solution lies in taking from the hands of government the idea or thought that government creates jobs or that a privately-owned corporation called the Federal Reserve (which violates our Constitution) is required to manage our economy. Government is a user of money and jobs, not a provider of them. All forms of government share that reality with all churches.

 

That is why so many people are giving up on church and take seriously the words of the Christ when He told us “Seek, and ye shall find.” They have come to realize Christ did not tell them to have a pastor or a priest seek for them. They have come to realize that all churches put forth a dogma that no one really follows... like liberal democrats who vote to support Planned Parenthood and are welcomed in Catholic churches for Confession every Friday and to church services every Sunday. The same acceptance is given by Protestant churches. All churches seem more determined to see parishioners adhere to a dogma than to their spiritual growth and acceptance and growing belief in their Creator.

 

What is Capitalism? I suggest this is one of Your Holiness’s “don’t know you don’t know” problems. It is best defined by the philosopher who created the concept in the 1700s, Adam Smith. I suggest you read his book, Wealth of Nations. You might also find the book he wrote just prior to writing Wealth of Nations of interest, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Properly done and properly monitored, capitalism offers a pathway from poverty to all people who believe in God, in His goodness, in themselves, and are willing to work hard. It offers a pathway out of spiritual poverty and prelest (spiritual deception).

 

Unfortunately, by supporting people who flee tyranny rather than supporting them to effectively fight it, churches support a lack of responsibility for fighting tyranny and the tyrants who seek to enslave us all – politically, spiritually, and economically. I believe that is not only wrong, but immoral.

 

Please, Holy Father, give thought to the concept that to redistribute wealth is to disobey God’s Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Covet.”

 

God bless you and all believers in the Holiest of Holies and mi casa su casa... have a safe journey home.

 

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

THE ESTABLISHMENT WANT TO GET RID OF DONALD TRUMP

 

 

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
September 15, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

NWO wants Bush to be the next US President. Is the fix in?

This 2016 pre-election season with 17 Republican candidates (now 16 with the withdrawal of former Texas Governor Rick Perry) is specifically designed to give the Republicans another loser: Jeb Bush.

“Oh,” you say, “that can’t happen. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina are far ahead of Jeb Bush in the polls, and it looks like we’ll get a conservative nominee this time. Jeb Bush has very little support from voters.”

Delegate votes rather than popularity of a candidate determine Presidential nominees. That system has been skewed by those who control the Republican National Committee (RNC) which, in turn, controls state and county Republican committees. This system has given us middle-of-the-road loser candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Don’t get me wrong... I liked Mitt Romney, but though he was a fiscal conservative, he was a social liberal. I have no doubt Mitt would have been a far better President than the current White House occupant.

There is little doubt that conservatives have a very difficult time getting a conservative candidate nominated. Ronald Reagan is the last conservative Republican candidate nominated and that was 1980 and 1984 – and he was an anomaly. It is equally true that the GOP cannot win a national election without the support of conservative voters. What a nice conundrum!

If it’s impossible for Republicans to win a national election without conservative votes, it makes sense for the RNC to give the GOP a conservative Republican candidate. But politics isn’t about making sense. It’s about power... in this case, corrupted power run amok.

If a person who is more committed to the people than to the party is elected to the Presidency, that person can change the power structure of the Republican Party. The existing power structure of the Republican Party would rather see a Democrat elected than lose their power base. It’s as simple as that.

The problem for the powers that be is that people now know the system is totally corrupt and are demanding change. The problem for the people demanding change is they don’t understand the system and so don’t know what specific demands for change to make. The people see their freedoms lost – it used to be one-by-one, but is now a system-by-system loss: the system of justice which now decides which laws it will enforce, the system of legislative, judicial and executive balance set forth by the Constitution, our guaranteed rights to freedom of religion, the right to own guns, the right for business owners to refuse service to anyone they choose, and on and on.

So what is the GOP’s plan to surreptitiously nominate Jeb Bush?

To understand the process, you must understand the structure of the system. You must especially understand what is termed “proportional allocation of delegates,” especially in early-voting states.

Citizens appointed or elected as county and then state delegates are the ones who at the Republican Convention nominate the presidential candidate. It would take a book chapter not an article to explain the various rules and regulations in place in different states regarding winner-take-all versus proportional allocation rules. Since I don’t have a book or a chapter available, the following paragraphs will give you an overview. For more in-depth explanations, go here, and here, and here.

We tend to think that delegate votes reflect voter choice in primaries or state conventions. It’s a reasonable assumption but the RNC has put into place rules and regulations that thwart that logical approach. It’s the only way it can protect the liberal progressive power base currently controlling the Republican Party.

After the 2012 nomination of Mitt Romney, the RNC changed party rules designed to prevent a candidate of the people rather than of the party (read “conservative”) from getting the nomination. These rules require all state contests held from March 1st through March 14th, whether in caucus/convention or primary states, to allocate delegate committed votes on a proportional basis. As I understand it, that means if a candidate gets 20% of the vote in a state’s Congressional district, he/she gets 20% of the delegates from that district. If the candidate wins 5%, the state commits to the candidate 5% of the district’s delegates, etc.

Only four states are permitted to hold their caucuses/convention or primaries prior to March 1st of any national election year: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. The rules adopted by the RNC make it all but impossible for any candidate to run up a sizeable delegate lead in the early state contests because there are numerous candidates still running. The states that are more conservative – the Southern states (including Texas, Virginia and North Carolina) have scheduled their contests during this time. Colorado, Iowa and Minnesota are also good voting grounds for conservatives and may hold their nominee contests by the March 15th deadline.

So what’s wrong with deciding which candidate the selected delegates will support on a proportional basis? What’s wrong with giving all candidates the percentage of delegates based on voter or convention results... the percentage of votes they received?

A popular candidate – like the four leading conservative candidates, Trump, Carson, Cruz and Fiorina -- could gain major delegate leads in these early, mostly conservative state primaries and conventions if it wasn’t for proportional allocation of delegates. Does the RNC believe the concept of proportional allocation of votes reflects the will of the people? If they did, Al Gore would have become President of the United States in 2000.

Instead, we have 16 candidates, each carefully selected for one of several reasons, so populist candidates will get far fewer delegates under proportional allocation because candidates that don’t stand a chance get one or two or three delegates. In other words, conservative candidates cannot build a lead during the time frame most conservative states hold their conventions and/or primaries.

If that doesn’t explain to you how important it is for you to get involved in local politics, nothing will. It is the only way we can take back control of our state and county Republican parties. If conservatives didn’t so dislike group power-based activities we could make a huge difference in the way things are forced upon conservatives. If you have time for church activities, for local service clubs, for bowling nights, you have time to devote to freedom which makes all of them possible.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won the Ohio nominating contest by only one point, but got 13 more delegates than Rick Santorum who came in second. Wisconsin is a winner-take-all state which Romney won by eight points and got all 24 delegates. Santorum won the North Dakota caucus but Romney was awarded 20 of the state’s 28 delegates to Santorum’s 6. How did this happen? Proportional allocation of delegates versus winner-take-all and the timing of each... the requirement that forces those states that hold their caucus/conventions or primaries during the March 1st through March 14th dates to allocate delegates on a proportional basis.

It is quite clear that the RNC has taken the nominating process from the hands of the people and placed it in the hands of... the Republican National Committee. It’s a bit like re-districting was handled when Congressman Allen West ran for re-election in Florida. The State of Florida carved out a district in which it was impossible for any conservative to win. Why? Col. West is a conservative and the Republicans wanted to get rid of him.

That’s how these rats are micro-managing and manipulating the nominating process so we cannot get conservative candidates elected.

However, there are even more maddening ploys being put in play to ensure Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee for President.

It’s actually quite a dark plot – worthy of those who understand how to manipulate the political system to thwart the desires of the people. Understanding that a plan is in place answers a lot of questions. For example: “George Pataki? Why in the world would he enter the Republican race for the Presidency? Does anyone but New Yorkers know who he is?” For an answer, look at the number of delegate votes in high-population states. Or, “John Kasich? They know who he is in Ohio... but in Montana or Idaho?” Ohio is a high-population, high-delegate state. Former Virginia Governor, Jim Gilmore? Rick Santorum? High delegate states. Ted Cruz? High delegate state (though I don’t think Cruz would play ball in this kind of game).

First, why do we have 16 candidates in this ridiculous parade of mostly politicians who know – and knew from the day they entered the Presidential race – they have no chance of winning? Was it ego? Money? Patriotism? Or are they part of a plan to siphon delegates to Jeb Bush?

This is more than a conspiracy theory. It is a plot that makes all the sense in the world when you look at it through the dirty window of politics.

On March 1st – Super Tuesday – 601 delegates will be proportionally determined in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Vermont, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Look at how many of these states tend to vote conservative and remember how proportional assignment of delegates harms conservatives.

On Tuesday, March 8th, 130 delegates will be proportionally determined in Michigan, Idaho, and Mississippi.

On Sunday, March 13th, Puerto Rico (with 23 delegates) holds its delegate-assigning contest.

On Tuesday, March 15th, 234 delegates will be proportionally determined in Florida, Ohio, and Illinois.

A total of 974 delegates will be assigned to one candidate or another under the proportion allocation system. It only takes a couple of hundred more votes to gain the nomination!

In Ohio, John Kasich will get a lot of votes because he’s the Governor of that state and a favorite son. Does Kasich have a chance to win the nomination? He’s pretty far down in the polls so to say “it’s possible” is a bit of a stretch. Proportionally, he’s popular and will get a lot of delegates.

In Florida, Marco Rubio is a popular Senator and will draw many votes. In Virginia, people know who Jim Gilmore is and some will vote for him. Mike Huckabee will draw votes because he's the ex-Governor of Arkansas – and he will draw votes from other Southern states because he’s a southerner. And he’ll pull votes from the Christian voter block in all states. He is a former pastor. Rick Santorum is well-known in Pennsylvania and will get Christian votes – especially Catholic votes – in all Bible Belt states... Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, etc. Rand Paul is popular in Kentucky and will get Libertarian votes in most states.

Do you see how carefully these candidates were selected for their ability to draw votes away from very popular conservative candidates?

Will any of these people actually win these contests? Donald Trump is (currently) so popular, it’s not likely (Kasich might in Ohio, Cruz might in Texas, Rubio might in Florida... all big delegate states).

What happens after the primaries and conventions... after delegates have been determined and promised to support this candidate or that? What happens is that we move on to the Republican National Convention where the candidate for the Office of the President of the United States is decided.

What happens when the Convention Secretary reads each state by name and each state responds by giving a list of candidates to whom proportional votes have committed delegates FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING?

Unless I’m mistaken, if no candidate is gets the required votes to gain the nomination as President of the United States on the first ballot, delegates may be released to vote for candidates of their choice. Or, the 16 candidates who never won a primary – maybe never even got more than 20% of the vote – can give their delegate votes to another candidate. And that’s why we had 17 presidential candidates from high population states with large numbers of delegates who have strong appeal to certain conservative splinter groups. Of those candidates, about half were plants, the rest were legitimate candidates. That’s why we had so many candidates who appeal to conservative splinter groups – anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-Obamacare, anti-Planned Parenthood, etc.

Do not be surprised if the candidate to whom they give their votes is named Jeb Bush.  When that happens, it will tell you much about the character of the person who assigns his or her votes to Governor Bush.  It will also tell you why they entered the race because this was their purpose from day one.

There is much more that could be said about the political mess we’ve allowed the National Republican Committee to make of the once proud and conservative-based party, but as I said, I only have one article, not a chapter or a book.

As we listen to the debates and as we near the caucus/convention and primary seasons, it is critically important that you vote and work for the best possible candidate, not a favorite son candidate or a favorite issue candidate. Find the best candidate with the best chance to win and vote for him or her.

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

 

MEGAN KELLY, BAIER, AND WALLACE: DID THE FOX OUTFOX ITSELF?

By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
August 9, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

The Fox News Republican debates Thursday night had a record-breaking audience of 24 million.

I don’t know the size of the audience for the earlier debate which hosted presidential candidates Senator Lindsay Graham, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Senator Rick Santorum, and former New York Governor George Pataki.

What became apparent in the early debate is that Governor Gilmore and Carly Fiorina belong onstage with those we consider serious candidates for the Republican presidential race and the others belong exactly where they are... junior varsity.

In the Big Star Debate that same night, entrepreneur real estate mogul Donald Trump, the strong leader in the race, appeared with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, former Arkansas Governor and former Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

The word used most often during the debate was “conservative.” The candidates know they cannot win a Presidential election without the votes of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and make sure their comments feature any conservative actions, thoughts or deeds to which they can lay claim. Equally, those audience members who truly are conservative are left wondering what candidates mean when they say “I’m conservative.” Some of their “I support this or that” comments shout “I’m a neo-conservative” or "I'm a social liberal."

The hosts of the show did not clarify the term and they should have done so. They made the journalistic mistake of not requesting clarification of a term everyone was using but which was being interpreted differently by different candidates. They assumed that everyone has the same definition of the word “conservative.” They did not.

Whenever Jeb Bush and John Kasich use the word, it translates to “fiscal conservative, social liberal.” In other words, they are part of the neo-conservative family of politics. How do I know that? Both support Common Core. Both support amnesty for illegal aliens in one form or another. You can put all the lipstick on that pig you want, it’s still a pig.

How do you define “conservative?” First, it’s a philosophy of life, not an independent action (or a series of actions). For example, someone who supports building a wall to cease illegal alien entry into our country may call him or herself a “conservative.” But if that person also supports some form of amnesty their conservative credentials should be questioned. Why? Because conservatives believe first and foremost in the rule of law that flows from the Constitution and the first thing illegals do when they enter America is violate our laws. It’s sad that they entered our nation illegally and built an illegal life here and even sadder that their children may have been born here and call this country home, but it doesn’t change that their very presence shows disregard for our Constitution and laws that tell them how to legally become an American.

A conservative is a constitutionalist. First and foremost, that is what a conservative is. Second, you don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you support and reject those parts with which you disagree. It’s an all or nothing deal which, when honored under one set of circumstances but not another, indicates the person is like President Obama, believing he or she has the right to set aside this or that constitutional law when they feel like it. A real conservative doesn’t believe that.

Because conservatives are constitutionalists, they believe in the Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution. You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you respect. Either you respect and obey them, or you work to change them. You don’t break laws... not even when you’re out for a Sunday drive and want to exceed the speed limit. I admit that when government becomes tyrannical and passes bad or unlawful laws, it is time to protest and if that doesn't work, to disobey. Government and its laws must be kept in check.

Conservatives value and respect the truth. They do not ignore reality. They do not live their lives as if things are as they want them to be rather than how they really are. They identify problems and search for solutions. They do not put on rose-colored glass while ignoring reality, letting things get worse. Or, worse yet, they don’t compromise truth with lies thinking they have somehow advanced an otherwise hopeless cause. To compromise truth with lies and expect truth to shine through is to mix milk with coffee and expect the coffee to remain black.

Perhaps rather than asking a question about whether everyone on stage will support the Republican candidate who gains the nomination (regardless of who it is), Fox moderators might ask candidates if they believe in and support the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and if they value truth over political correctness. If they don’t want to ask those questions, they might ask each candidate to define what he or she means when they use the word “conservative.” Without that definition, an audience cannot make logical sense out of the answers given by debate participants who apply the word differently from one another.

If you look at the answers given Thursday night with those three things in mind, you will find Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, and Rand Paul are constitutionalists. And, it may surprise you, but so is Donald Trump. From the earlier debate, so is former business executive Carly Fiorina.

When you look at the issue of abortion, Mike Huckabee gave a truly conservative answer to that particular question. De-funding Planned Parenthood as supported by Senators Cruz and Rubio is a good band-aid, but it’s only a band-aid – and it doesn’t solve the real problem. The question that needs to be answered is when can what a woman carries in her womb be defined as “human life” deserving of the protections the Constitution gives all Americans? Huckabee, however, supports Common Core... a socially liberal position.

Scott Walker opposes abortion on the grounds of personal belief – and God bless him for it. So, too, do John Kasich and several other debaters. The Constitution, not any individual’s personal beliefs, however, is what needs to guide the behavior of any lawmaker and certainly the behavior of our President. Walker is right that there are better, less risky alternatives than late-term abortion to save the life of a woman in the late stages of pregnancy... but even that is a humanitarian, not a constitutional, reason late-term abortion is wrong.

When you look at the issue of privacy violations that result from the NSA’s gathering of data that tells them who all citizens of the United States talk with on their telephones or email daily, Rand Paul clearly placed the Fourth Amendment into the debate. He was right. It is a constitutional answer.

As it relates to the candidates, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Governor Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, and Rand Paul appear to be real conservatives based on the questions asked and my definition of the word. Some of the others appear to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Some appear to merely be politicians trying to enhance their political reputations by running for the presidency. Donald Trump remains a question mark relative to whether he is a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.

Marco Rubio removed himself from my list of possibilities when I learned his first major speech after the announcement of his candidacy was given at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Most of the problems in America today had their start at the CFR which controls far too much of what goes on in Washington, D.C.

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal are not natural born Americans. That is a constitutional requirement for a person to hold the office of the President. I love Ted Cruz and would vote for him, but this is a major roadblock. The fact that his wife, Heidi, has worked for Goldman Sachs for years is another.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any definition other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. The most often quoted Supreme Court case is Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) but USA We the People makes available several Supreme Court decisions that define “natural born.” They all say it means an American citizen born of two American citizens.

A lot of Americans don’t take the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution very seriously. Perhaps they have bought the liberal/progressive line that a legitimate candidate for the Presidency need only be a citizen – born in the United States. A lot of anchor babies whose mothers unlawfully come across the border to give birth in San Diego or El Paso are born every year. They can, using this definition of “natural born,” become President – even if they were raised and educated in Mexico. The point is, “natural born citizen” is a very important qualification for anyone wanting to become President of the United States – and it is part of our Constitution.

To believe otherwise is a very dangerous, anti-constitutional position for several reasons – including an acceptance by the Republican Party that Barack Obama was always a legitimate candidate (and in my opinion he is not and never has been). Obama’s birth certificate has nothing to do with it. His father’s Kenyan birth has everything to do with it. He is not and has never been a natural-born American citizen because his father was not a citizen of the United States at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.

By approving the idea that to qualify for the Presidency all you need to do to run for president is be born in America makes what Obama did lawful – and it is not. To accept one of these three men – Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio – as a legitimate Republican candidate for the Presidency removes the possibility that Obama’s Presidency (and all of the programs and appointments put in place under his pretend Administration) will one day be declared unlawful because he was unqualified to be President (not a natural born American). Think about it. What a great way to get rid of most of the Obama Administration’s bad legislation, including Obama Care. If a Republican candidate who is not a natural born American is accepted as the legitimate Republican candidate, the possibility of one day declaring Obama’s Presidency void due to natural born citizenship non-qualification is dead.

As for Donald Trump’s performance Thursday night, had I been standing on the stage with him I would have raised my hand with him. There are people running for the Republican nomination that I would not support just because the Republican Party says this is the person they want elected to office. They also recommended John Boehner and Mitch McConnell who have kept none of the Republican promises made before the 2012 and 2014 elections.

I respect Trump for his honesty. What puts me off about The Donald is that he relates himself to the problems of the world (rather than relating the problems of the world to himself) That is a text book definition of a narcissist and we’ve had more than six years of watching a narcissistic President in action.

Trump may not be a narcissist. Maybe he relates himself to the problems of the world because he lacks a record as Congressman or Senator or Governor and his personal success is what he has to relate to when he speaks of problems and solutions.

The Donald can dissipate the view many people have of him – that of narcissist – by talking about solutions to problems rather than just pointing out the problems and telling us how stupid politicians are. Though in most instances he’s right telling us how stupid they are, it tells us nothing of how he would have been smarter in solving the specific problems the “stupid” politicians have failed to solve.

He can talk about how to create jobs, not just point out something we all know: Jobs must be created. He can talk about how to stimulate independent business growth, not just point out that the current Congress and White House are destroying independent banks which removes access to credit needed by independent businesses (which employs the largest percentage of America’s workers). We’ll see if he has specific suggestions in mind or if his campaign is just going to point out problems most of us know exist.

It’s hard for me to say this because when Carly Fiorina was fired from Hewlett Packard, I wrote a relatively nasty article about her. After watching the first debates, she stands out solidly as the best prepared, the clearest thinking, the most knowledgeable candidate on the long list of Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential race. We need to know more about her.

I’m not into wars against women or feminism, but I think it would be a riot if Republicans elected the first women President of the United States of America... if a woman is the most qualified to hold that job.

© 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved