Difference between revisions of "Personal to Ted Cruz"

From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)

Line 2: Line 2:
By Dave Leach
By Dave Leach, April 18, 2016, posted also at  [http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/personal-to-ted-cruz/CafeConLecheRepublican.]
Ted Cruz sent me an email today asking for money. What was different was that it begins: "Ted Cruz Personal Email -- May Include Privileged Communication"
Ted Cruz sent me an email today asking for money. What was different was that it begins: "Ted Cruz Personal Email -- May Include Privileged Communication"

Revision as of 00:40, 19 April 2016

Personal to Ted Cruz

By Dave Leach, April 18, 2016, posted also at [1]

Ted Cruz sent me an email today asking for money. What was different was that it begins: "Ted Cruz Personal Email -- May Include Privileged Communication"

Dreaming about really writing a personal letter to Cruz, I wrote the rest of the day. Until more email with the same message came, with a variety of return addresses. It must mean “Personal FROM Cruz's hidden email address to everybody with five dollars.” So here is my equally “personal” reply.

The questions I ask of him, I ask of you, dear reader. I question assumptions so entrenched in public discussion that evidence I offer is often treated as irrelevant. Some conclusions are so unacceptable that it becomes irrelevant whether they are true.

Yet we humans must stand for truth to whatever extent we can grasp it, however poorly, hoping others will help by pointing out weaknesses meriting more careful study, Proverbs 15:22. So if any reader is willing to partner with me, in digging deep for truth, showing me the errors of facts or reasoning of my unfamiliar ideas, I will appreciate being rid of them so more people will like me. My contact info.

Honorable Senator Cruz:

I beg you to realign your positions on immigration with Godly principles as well as you have on abortion, sodomy, and all other issues. I beg either persuasion that my fears are unfounded, or that you will retreat from proposals that, if I am right, will destroy America and defy our Creator as much as Obama has.

The E-verify insisted upon by you and many others meets all the elements of the physical description of the Mark of the Beast in Revelation 13 except for the identification with "666". If everyone will go to Hell who takes the mark, what will happen to those who vote to fast-track its deployment? Can you tell me where I am wrong, or why I should not be concerned, as a steward of my vote, with God's warning?

You told me the reason we have to have it is because without it, we can't identify and deport "illegals".

But on one side of the card I handed you, both at your showing of the "War Room" movie and when you spoke at a church just south of Des Moines, I linked to many reasons why E-verify, besides threatening the liberty of citizens as well as that of "illegals", doesn't achieve its stated goals. For example, it doesn't nab people who start their own business, and by forcing immigrants to migrate to jobs less scrutinized by E-verify it only reduces their "job magnet" from a 253% increase over wages in Mexico, to a 240% increase. See Alex Nowrasteh's research at Checking E-verify Costs or my review of it at E-Verify's Fatal Problems. I know you have been in Washington a little while, but is it possible that you could invest so heavily in an alleged solution without evidence that it works? If Nowrasteh and I are wrong - if you or anyone else has addressed and disposed of our concerns, please tell me where. The only published response to Nowrasteh that I have found was by Jeremy Beck at NumbersUSA. I thought his analysis was irresponsibly careless for so grave a subject. I addressed it at section 5-D of Rector's Undocumented Reckoning.

Speaking of Robert Rector, on the same side of that card I handed you, I showed that the research relied on in immigration discussion to back up the claims of economic harm (taking jobs, driving down wages, etc) from too much immigration are produced by only half a dozen men, including Rector, none of whom have university credentials in economics. They are Undocumented Economists. Meanwhile, real economists are so much more positive in their assessment of the impact of immigration that the most pessimistic real economist is more optimistic than any of the Undocumented Economists who quote him.

I have shown you this information several times, although of course each time was maybe a minute. Is it wrong? You never suggested it is wrong. You just got busy with the next person waiting in line for a selfie with you. If this is wrong I am desperate for evidence that it is. Do you think it doesn't matter that economists almost universally say more immigration will benefit Americans most while only Undocumented Economists say we will benefit from fewer immigrants? I have posted several Immigration Resources with the information on that card and much more.

When the Senate Judiciary Committee heard Expert Witnesses in 2013 about an immigration bill, half of whose title was "Economic Opportunity", only two of the 39 the Committee chose to hear had cared enough about correctly understanding economics to make that their major in college. In 2014-2015, only one of the Senate's 33 Expert Witnesses was a real economist, and he didn't talk about economics.

You are a lawyer. Can you really believe any court in the land would allow people to testify as Expert Witnesses without anything that documents their self-proclaimed expertise? Why do you tolerate that predominance of Undocumented Witnesses in the Committee whose laws bind America's courts?

On the other side of the card I gave you were a few Scriptures which make a strong case that not "taking in" the "stranger" risks Hell. I realize a few arguments attempt to prevent application of those verses to undocumented immigrants. But have you ever listened to them and considered how long reasoning on that level of competence would last in court? Have you checked those interpretations against the prevailing consensus of commentaries and lexicons? Have you noticed that the number of published theologians making them is fewer than the number of Undocumented Economists?

The card I gave you listed 4 verses, and cites a few more. My 12 page study, The Stranger Project, addresses the claims of Undocumented Theologians.

Voting to fast-track deployment of the Mark of the Beast seems pretty spiritually dangerous to me. Enough to be terrified of a presidential candidate who makes that a top priority. Do you have any concern about it at all? Voting to drive out nonviolent, hard working immigrants seems equally perilous: spiritually, according to God, and economically, according to economists. When people are so willing to hurt others that they are willing to hurt themselves in order to do it, that raises the concern how much they are going to enjoy Heaven so full of Love, defined in John 15:13 as so willing to help others that one is willing to hurt himself in order to do it.

I beg you for any assurance you can give me that I am wrong, and/or that you are not forcing God to deprive you of the presidency in order to deliver America from Mark of the Beast judgment a little longer. I see in you the most amazing candidate any conservative could hope for in a century, combined with as terrifying a threat as any nation will ever face in all of human history.

I beg of you, deliver me from my schizophrenia! Answer me. Show me where I am wrong, or where you are willing to reconsider your alignment with the commandments of our God.