The Most Notable Absence

After watching the final GOP debate before the Iowa Caucus, there were far too many important issues that came up for me to address only one. So today, it’s rapid fire.

Let’s begin.

First off, the most talked about part of the debate - Trump’s absence. Let’s get this over with. When Trump started making noises about skipping out, my first thought was, “If he wants to be president, he’s going to have to get used to being treated unfairly!”

My second thought was, “What conservative is afraid of a Fox News debate?” I understand the aversion that most Democrats have to Fox News. Of all the news stations, Fox is definitely the furthest right in comparison to the others. In other words, I can understand Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley not wanting to do a debate with Megyn Kelly moderating. I can’t understand a Republican feeling the same way.

Trump’s reasoning is that he wouldn’t get a fair shake from Kelly, therefore it wasn’t worth his time. I have news for him, every Republican knew going into the CNBC debate that they were not going to get a fair shake. And no one, including Trump, backed out.

Finally, there’s this….

Enough said.

Moving right along, the next big topic was immigration. You had Rubio and Cruz going at it over who had supported amnesty when, etc. etc. I think it’s safe to say that most people got lost about half-way through their exchange.

Immigration is not nearly as complex as some would make it out to be. We have to have borders that mean something. People who break the laws cannot be rewarded for it. People who want to immigrate must do so legally and because they want to become Americans. Pretty simple stuff. The controversy comes when people’s records and past statements are scrutinized and interpreted.

Fact Number 1: Marco Rubio co-sponsored the so-called “Gang of Eight Bill”, a bill the has become synonymous with amnesty. Fact Number 2: The testimony of several other congressmen who were present and involved in the debate, demonstrate that Ted Cruz fought against the bill advanced by Rubio and others.

Both men say we need to build a wall, enforce our current laws, and stop illegal immigration. And that’s a lot better than anything Clinton or Sanders have advanced.

(And another thing. Rubio and Cruz have been absolutely hammered over this immigration/amnesty thing, while Trump skates along in the background, having been for abortion and partial birth abortion, having been against the 2nd Amendment, having donated to people like Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and many others, and the list goes on!)

The biggest take-away from the debate, however, was the absence, not of Donald Trump, but rather of the U.S. Constitution. The men on that stage are in the interview process to become President of the United States. They will take a solemn oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. You the people, are the interviewers. Are they qualified for the job? Do they even understand the job?

The Constitution was mentioned only 5 times in the entire debate. Three times by Rubio in commentary regarding Obama’s disregard of it, and once each by Ben Carson and Ted Cruz in their closing statements. I think that is telling, especially regarding the other 4 candidates.

If a candidate is not passionate about the Constitution, if they don’t understand what it stands for, what it means, then they do not merit our consideration for the office of President, where the job description is not to create jobs, it is not to make Washington work, it is not to make America great again, it is not even to protect America.

No, the job description is to “protect, preserve and defend the Constitution”. Why is that so important? Because if it is done, unselfishly and steadfastly, without compromise, then America will be safe, peaceful and strong. America will be great. America will be prosperous. But only, only if we elect a leader who understands, loves and is willing to fight for the Constitution of the United States.