Tag Archives: Ted Cruz

GOP Candidates Continue to Toss Money Down Cornhole

Gilligan-s-Island-Mr-and-Mrs-Howell-classic-television-revisited-3727152-435-326The really big difference between Republican and Democrat handout recipients is their ability to be sympathetically photogenic. When pressed, the average Democrat welfare recipient can hide the flat–screen TV, stash the cellphone in a drawer and refrain from cigarette smoking. And it’s not too much trouble to pretend to fill out the job application or limp convincingly to prove the bad back disability claim as long as photographers and media are around.

The Republican dependency class is another genus entirely. Empathy generating photo shoots and news coverage for these check–cashers is simply a non–starter. Hiding the Rolex, wheeling the executive jet inside the hangar, displacing the butler from the servant’s quarters and convincing the first wife to pretend to supervise the caterer is just too difficult to organize.

If Democrat welfare beneficiaries can avoid arrest, making jihad videos and Judge Judy the money continues to arrive completely free of social disapproval.

Not so for GOP crony capitalists. These leeches fight a two front war: Prevent competition and confuse conservatives. They are loud and proud “job creators,” economic mainstays and incubators of breakthrough technology! All the favored crony industry requires for total success is billions of taxpayer dollars in perpetuity while the people who supply the tax dollars maintain a discrete and respectful silence.

And Republican officeholders must pretend the conservative market principles they espouse in campaign commercials somehow don’t apply to this particular crony.

A disappointing number of 2016 GOP presidential candidates recently did just that in Iowa during the quadrennial Pour Money Down the Cornhole Festival otherwise known as the Iowa Ag Summit.

There Republican presidential candidates worship the ethanol subsidy and praise ethanol entrepreneurs for their selfless addiction to subsidies and environmental fairy tales.

The Renewable Fuel Standards law requires all gasoline refined in the US be 10 percent ethanol. Ethanol is the wonder product, made from corn, which makes gasoline more costly while reducing miles per gallon and increasing wear on internal combustion engines.

Diluting perfectly efficient gas with ethanol is like forcing mom to add sawdust to her cake recipe to protect our valuable flour stockpile. Sure the additional roughage keeps dad regular, but wear and tear on teeth and the occasional oven fire — not to mention that Home Depot flavor — doesn’t come close to compensating for the missing wheat.

The same is true for ethanol, all at a cost to taxpayers of $6 billion a year in handouts.

Somehow those facts didn’t make it into the spiel GOP mega contributor and summit sponsor Bruce Rastetter made.

Ethanol supporters would have one believe that before the bill was passed requiring refineries to dilute your gasoline, corn grew wild in Iowa and no one was even aware there was a use for the weed, other than the occasional frontier corn fritter. And even after wise agronomists in Washington started throwing money at corn farmers the fuel market was controlled by sinister forces that prevented innovation.

Just like the whale oil cartel prevented widespread drilling for oil until the early 60’s.

As columnist Paul Driessen wrote Rastetter’s pitch to the assembled candidates was pointed and effective: Failure to support ethanol handouts in Iowa means no victory in the 2016 caucus and no chance for the GOP nomination.

Naturally Big Government Republicans didn’t require much in the way of pressure to crumble. Jeb Bush said corny gasoline reduces the demand for imported oil. Mike Huckabee said it’s a way for the nation to “fuel itself.” (No pun intended.) And Lindsay Graham solemnly stated “Every gallon of ethanol … is one less gallon you have to buy from people who hate your guts,” which makes you wonder when Obama started pumping gas.

Rick Santorum, trying to get someone to pay attention, thought the RFS means something besides oil and natural gas “are allowed into [the energy] stream.” And Scott Walker was a profile in cowardice as he abandoned his 2006 call for an end to ethanol subsidies.

Rick Perry split the difference and wanted to end federal ethanol subsidies, but said that individual states could choose to be a foster parent for corn, which is at least a Constitutionally valid stance and would exempt most states that don’t grow corn and corn lobbyists.

The only candidates claiming to be conservative supporters of market competition and having the courage to tell Iowa voters the subsidy spigot should be turned off were Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio — although Rubio did refer to corn as “maize.”

There’s an old song about moonshiners called “White Lightening” with a refrain that goes “Mighty, mighty pleasin’ my pappy’s corn squeezin’s.” Until Republicans can stop “pleasin’” crony capitalists with subsidies at the expense of the public, taxpayers will continue to be subject to regular “squeezin.”

Rand Paul is the one distorting Reagan’s foreign policy

ReaganPeaceQuote

 

Ronald Reagan was such a successful President – especially in the foreign policy realm – that virtually all Republicans today want to project themselves as the next Reagan and claim that their foreign policy is the same as Reagan’s in order to woo national security oriented voters.

One such politician is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Because his principal rival for the 2016 Republican nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), has distinguished himself from Paul by adopting Reagan’s foreign policy principles while exposing Paul as the neo-isolationist that he is, the Kentucky Senator is desperate to defend himself.

Therefore, he has recently launched an attack on unnamed “Republicans” (presumably Cruz) on the Breitbart website, falsely accusing them of “warping” Reagan’s foreign policy.

But in fact, it is Rand Paul, NOT Ted Cruz or other Republicans, who is warping and distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy. Let me demonstrate how.

Rand Advocates Deep Defense Cuts

Rand advocates deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses, including and beyond sequestration; withdrawing US troops from strategically important bases around the world which are needed for power projection; isolationism masquerading as noninterventionism; and opposes even the most modest sanctions on Iran, claiming they would lead to war (a false claim that the anti-defense Left, including the Ploughshares Fund, also makes). Indeed, Rand has said that “not only should the sequester be maintained”, but that government spending, including defense spending, should be cut even further – as if the sequester’s and pre-sequester Obama defense cuts were not deep enough.

As a reminder, in his first two years, Obama killed over 50 crucial weapon programs, including the F-22 Raptor fighter (the only aircraft capable of defeating the newest Russian and Chinese fighters), the Zumwalt class destroyer, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Multiple Kill Vehicle for kinetic missile defense interceptors, and much more. In 2011, Obama cut another $178 bn from the defense budget under the guise of efficiencies. And in August 2011, Obama demanded and obtained another $1 trillion in defense cuts over the FY2012-FY2012 decade, including a $550 bn sequester that will take defense spending to $493 bn (less than 3% of America’s GDP) next year and keep in there until the mid-2020s!

Yet, Rand Paul thinks these defense cuts are not sufficient and demands even deeper, more crippling, defense cuts. This completely belies his claim that

“I believe, as he did, that our National Defense should be second to none, that defense of the country is the primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government.”

If the cuts required by the sequester (let alone the deeper cuts Rand demands) are implemented, the US military will be gutted. It will be a paper tiger, not a military force “second to none.”

Reagan would NEVER advocate such idiotic policies, and indeed throughout his entire presidency implemented the very OPPOSITE of the policies Rand advocates. OTOH, Ted Cruz – unlike Rand Paul – does support a Reaganite foreign policy: rebuilding America’s defenses, standing up to dictators like Putin where it matters, but avoiding being drawn into irrelevant or murky jihadist viper pits like Syria.

But it gets even worse. In the Breitbart article cited above, Rand not only distorts the Gipper’s foreign policy, he shows he completely doesn’t understand what that policy was and how it worked, and demonstrates – there, as well as in his recent (Feb. 25th) Washington Post op-ed – that he does NOT support a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy.

He claims that:

“Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries.”

Leaving aside the undisputable fact that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent has proven to be a foolish mistake, it was Reagan’s toughness, not diplomacy, that won the Cold War. In fact, it was his toughness that brought the Soviet Union back to the arms reduction barganining table in the first place.

The Soviets returned to the negotiating table because they knew the US could keep up the arms race for long, while their own economy was flagging (and in 1991, it collapsed, as did the USSR itself) and couldn’t really sustain the arms race any longer, especially with the costs of the Afghan war, the Chernobyl disaster, and the late 1980s’ oil glut added. (Reagan convinced Saudi Arabia to dramatically increase its oil output to cut global oil prices and thus undermine Moscow’s oil-dependent economy).

I’ll repeat it again: it was Reagan’s TOUGHNESS, his harsh policies towards the USSR, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table and eventually won the Cold War. Not diplomacy, not detente, not nice words, not his friendship with Gorbachev.

Reagan never sheathed the sword – the sword was always hanging over the Soviets’ heads. And that’s PRECISELY why Gorbachev agreed to make concessions.

Rand further claims that:

“Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser.”

But, as demonstrated above, it was Reagan’s TOUGH POLICIES, not diplomacy or nicety, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table. And Gorbachev initially wasn’t in a mood to make concessions. It was not until he understood the US was in a far stronger negotiating position, and when Reagan revealed the documents Col. Ryszard Kuklinski (a Warsaw Pact defector) handed over to the CIA, that Gorbachev began to make concessions.

(At the first Reagan-Gorbachev meeting, in 1985, the Soviet leader was initially as stubborn as his predecessors, not willing to make policy concessions. Then, Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Cap Weinberger, took his ace out of his sleeve: he gave the maps [stolen by Colonel Kuklinski] of secret Soviet bunkers, built for nuclear war, to Reagan, who gave them to Gorbachev, who in turn gave them to Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, the Soviet Chief of the General Staff, who accompanied Gorby. Akhromeyev was very scared upon seeing the documents, and explained their importance to the civilian Gorbachev. From then on, the Soviets were more willing to make concessions.)

Rand also believes firmly in a soft, appeasement-like policy towards Russia – ignoring the fact that it was such policy that led to the current  Crimean crisis in the first place. He falsely claims in his WaPo op-ed that America’s relationship with Russia should be “respectful” and that:

“There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.”

No. Diplomacy has had its time – and has dismally failed, as usual. Now is the time for FIRMNESS and MANLINESS. Now is the time to impose the harshest sanctions on Russia that are possible and to dramatically increase oil and gas production in the US (ANWR, NPRA, OCS, shale formations, authorizing the Keystone Pipeline) and to export these fuels to Europe to dramatically reduce its dependence on Russia for hydrocarbons. This would strike Russia where it would really hurt Moscow – and accomplish America’s goals without a single soldier and without firing a shot.

As for a “respectful” relationship with Russia – tell that to Vladimir Putin. Lecture him about “respectful” relationships, Mr Paul, not your fellow Republicans. Putin’s Russia has, in recent years:

  1. Invaded two sovereign countries on false pretexts, and in reality because they started aligning themselves with the West.
  2. Threatened a nuclear attack on the US or its allies at least 15 times.
  3. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into US and allied airspace (and even into the airspace of neutral Sweden) on many occassions, even once on July 4th,
  4. Provided diplomatic protection to Iran, North Korea, and Syria, nuclear fuel and reactors to Iran, weapons to Iran and Syria, and sold tons of advanced weapons to China – weapons which will be used to kill American troops.
  5. Murdered journalists and other dissidents (e.g. Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko), and jailed many others, opposing the Putin regime.
  6. Conducted a huge military buildup that continues to this day and is slated to continue for long but which long ago has exceeded Russia’s legitimate defense needs.
  7. Repeatedly violated the INF treaty by testing and deploying missiles banned by the treaty.

And the US is supposed to have a “respectful” relationship with such a hostile regime, Senator Paul? Are you on drugs? Who is your foreign policy advisor, Pat Buchanan?

In short, Rand has shown, once again, that he is NO Reaganite, that he is virtually indistinguishable from his father on policy matters, and that he clearly does not believe in a “peace through strength” policy. Furthermore, he’s distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy record. Conservatives must not allow him to fool them; he would continue and even double on Obama’s failed twin policies of unilateral disarmament and appeasement of America’s adversaries. Just like Obama, Paul advocates appeasement towards the world’s most dangerous regimes, from Russia, to Iran, to Syria. No real conservative would ever vote for him.

TX Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate Wendy Davis’ Slip Is Showing

Wendy Davis memeWendy Davis is not the first Democrat to use a fetus pile as a stepping–stone to higher office. She’s only the latest. But Wendy is in such a hurry to run for governor of Texas that she’s left a lot of inconvenient facts behind.

Davis first came to prominence when she lead a filibuster on the floor of the Texas Senate in favor of allowing women to abort their child as late as three months into the pregnancy. She termed it a “human right.” In contrast to Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) who read children’s books during his filibuster, Davis essentially read the unborn the riot act.

Although Davis is ruthless when it comes to the unborn, she expects Texas voters to have enough sympathy for her climb up from a hard–scrabble background to make her the first Democrat governor since 1995. She describes herself as a divorced teenage single mom who went from living in a trailer to Harvard Law and the Texas Senate.

Like Massachusetts’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Falseahontas), Davis believes that redneck chic is a real vote getter among women and low information voters. And just as Warren’s tale of adolescent privation and Native American ancestry didn’t hold up to scrutiny, neither does Wendy’s.

The only element of the tale that’s entirely true is she’s a woman, of sorts. As reported by The Dallas Morning News’ Wayne Slater, Davis was 21–years–old when she divorced. After the divorce she remained in the mobile home where she’d been living with her former husband. Although she may not have been too popular with neighbors since she also received three vehicles in the settlement.

Based on those qualifications I could be governor of Texas having lived in a trailer for an entire semester at college.

Davis didn’t stay single for long. Seeing an opportunity she morphed into a dress–wearing John Kerry. Wendy had her father approach a friend of his and ask, “How do you like younger women? My daughter wants to go out with you.” Husband–to–be Jeff Davis said in an interview. “I was flattered so I took her out. We dated two or three years, then got married.”

Jeff paid for Wendy’s last two years at Texas Christian University, although her spin is, “It was community resources. We paid for it together.” Sure, Jeff wrote the check and she cashed it.

Mother–of–the–Year Wendy then applied to Harvard Law School and was accepted. (I would really like to get a look at her application essay. It would no doubt move Charles Dickens to tears.) After her acceptance at Harvard, Jeff dutifully cashed in his 401(k) retirement account to cover the initial years and then took out a loan to pay for his wife’s last year.

In the meantime Wendy was faced with a dilemma regarding the children. Her daughter from her first marriage was 8 and the daughter with Jeff was 2, so it was obviously way too late to abort them. But how would it look for a hot little blonde to be toting children that reminded her of mobile housing?

So she left both girls with Jeff back in Fort Worth while she went to pursue her dream solo.

Wendy graduated in 1993 and returned to Fort Worth where one assumes her daughters asked to see a photo ID and then welcomed her home. In 1998, running as a Republican, Davis won a seat on the city council and began her climb up the political ladder.

Ironically enough, the day after Jeff made the last payment on the loan he took out for Wendy’s Harvard Law degree, she moved out and filed for divorce. Of course Wendy takes umbrage at the thought that poor Jeff was just another stepping–stone. Slater quotes her vehemently denying any exploitation, “I was a vibrant part of contributing to our family finances from the time I graduated to the time we separated in 2003,” she said. “The idea that suddenly there was this instantaneous departure after Jeff had partnered so beautifully with me in putting me through school is just absurd.”

Vibrant? Who talks like that and what does it mean? Wendy oscillated when she got a check? Here’s a rule of thumb from a media consultant: When descriptive words are excessive for the surrounding context it means they’re lying. Like when Obama talks about “robust diplomacy.”

For his part, Jeff wasn’t feeling so beautiful. The divorce filing listed adultery on Wendy’s part and he asked for a restraining order against Ms. Vibrant requesting the court require her to refrain from the use of drugs or alcohol “within 24 hours of contact with her children.”

The divorce allowed Wendy to again demonstrate her deep concern for children as she chose to give sole custody of her 12–year–old daughter to her husband; saying it just wasn’t a good time for her to have a daughter tagging along.

So there you have it. The darling of Texas Democrats and leftist abortion supporters nationwide is a liar who won’t even agree to raise her own daughter if it interferes with her overwhelming ambition. She’s used and discarded her way into Democrat political stardom.

Maybe Wendy Davis is simply the culmination of the decades–long feminist campaign to remake America. Now a woman can be as callous and unscrupulous as male politicians and still run for office.

For her part Davis realizes she’s going to have to do something about that biography. “My language should be tighter,” she said. “I’m learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail.”

Or she could just trying telling the truth for a change.

Why did government shutdown?

Ever since Ted Cruz decided to take a stand against the Democrats, we’ve been going in circles making the entire situation far too complicated. What made the shutdown such an abysmal failure for Republicans? You want a simple answer to that question, watch this video from CDN Radio’s own Dustin Hoyt. We did this to ourselves, with stupid infighting, and a failure of constituents to remind their elected officials exactly how our system works. People like John McCain need to be reminded that they can (and should) be removed from office by the people, when they fail to do what they’ve been elected to do. Also, we need to stop letting the Democrats control the narrative. Republicans were not the ones that refused to negotiate – they were.

Jabberwonky Christians are CRAZY style – October 18th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Friday, October 18th, 11pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: No, you’re not dreaming, or confused. Well, maybe you are a little confused… It’s Friday, not Sunday. The show is on at 11pm Eastern, not 10pm. Jabberwonky obviously has moved, and that’s because there will be a new show on Sunday nights. (More on that later!) For now, Liz is ticked at liberals – nothing new, but this time it’s a little worse than usual. Yes, they have been absolutely disgusting in their political and press porn lately, whether it’s picking on stenographers, or setting up the Republicans for more garbage after the new year. So, listen in to see just what happens when there isn’t anyone around to keep things a little calm!

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Grit and Grace on CDN – September 26th

gritandgraceCDN2
When: Thursday, September 26th, 9pm Eastern/6pm Pacific

Where: Grit and Grace on CDN on Blog Talk Radio

What: Please join Jennifer Meadows and Josh Bernstein every Thursday night from 9 -11 pm Eastern for one of the hardest hitting and content rich Conservative talk shows that takes an honest look at the issues affecting our nation. The Grit & Grace Radio Show promises our listeners no talking points, just real solutions.
~ Grit & Grace Radio Show ~ “Talk radio without talking points…”

Tonight: Is the Obama Administration changing from a culture of corruption to a culture of disgusting? We will discuss the latest on Obamacare and the lies that were told about this bill.

Can one patriot make all the difference? We will discuss Senator Ted Cruz’s crusade for justice as he stands up to the Globalcrats in Washington.

At 8:30 CST Washington Times Columnist and Radio Talk Show Host Sara Marie Brenner will be joining us to discuss her latest columns on defunding Obamacare and an update on the recall efforts on San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro.

Also, Examiner.com writer and contributor Joe Newby will be with us to discuss the latest breaking and exclusive stories that you won’t hear in the mainstream media.

After 9:pm CST we are taking calls from you! So don’t be shy and join in the conversation!

(424)220-1807

The Grit and Grace Show: “Talk Radio without Talking Points”

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Durbin Thinks the Gov’t Has Profits to Spend

In a perfect example of Progressive thinking, Sen. Dick Durbin (P-IL), has taken issue with the idea of lawmakers and congressional staff having to be subjected to the mandates of Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare. As people like Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid throw around rhetoric like “hostage,” “extortion,” “legislative arson,” etc., they are – at the very same time – carving out incredible perks for themselves and their staffs, paid for them on the backs of the taxpayers, while creating a super-privileged class.

Since the US Supreme Court, under the direction of SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, over-stepped their function in literally re-framing the
law as a tax — even as Progressive lawmakers debating the law stated without doubt that is was not a tax, it is fair to assume that this “tax” is covered by the authority of Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, which mandates all taxes, “… shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Specifically:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

Before the rhetorically challenged chime in, an “impost” is, by definition, a “tax.” But I am getting off track on the issue of tax inequity…\

In attempting to create – or, to be more accurate, further the privilege of the elitist political class, Mr. Durbin has suggested that government be treated on an even plane at the private sector.

The Washington Times reports:

“‘If Obamacare is going to force Americans all over this country to lose their employer-provided health insurance, be forced onto the exchange with no subsidies, then the men and women who serve in this body should feel that pain exactly the same,’ said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who on Tuesday staged a filibuster to block the chamber floor and draw attention to his fight to defund the health law.

“Sen. Richard J. Durbin (P-IL), though, said if members of Congress lost their taxpayer subsidies for health insurance, would Mr. Cruz want all workers to be stripped of support from their companies.

“‘You better think twice about this. If you want to stop the employer contribution to health insurance, that is the headline for tomorrow,’ Mr. Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said.”

When Sen. “Dickie” Durbin (P-IL), took to the floor during Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX), elongated floor speech to advance this ridiculous notion, he tried to slough off the underwriting of Congress’s health insurance, making a subsidy of 72% sound like Congressmen and their staffs were shouldering some sort of burden. Then he equated it to what large corporations do for their employees.

Note to Mr. Durbin: Corporations make profits out of which they pay for the benefits they provide their employees, or at least they used to before Obamacare, which is making them abandon their employees.

The Federal Government doesn’t make a product by which to create a “profit.” Government “profits” are taxes extracted from taxpayers. So, because government doesn’t create profits they can’t use those profits to pay for your health insurance benefits, or those of your staffs.

That said, there should be no federal health insurance benefits with the advent of Obamacare. All federal – all – should be in the Obamacare exchanges; each and every federal employee – union or not, regardless of branch – should be forced onto the exchanges.

Suddenly Obamacare doesn’t sound so hot, eh, Mr. Durbin?

Worth The Effort for Several Reasons

As US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), continues his “filibuster” of Obamacare, many in the so-called Conservative punditry have smugly dismissed the effort as futile, tunnel-visioned in their understanding of why Cruz’s actions are not only critical to the eventual repeal of Obamacare, but to the effectiveness of the Republican Party and the survival of representative government.

A cursory examination of the by-products of Sen. Cruz’s efforts not only illuminates the incredible short-sightedness of the establishment Republican apparatus – both elected and not, but advances an argument to the American people as to why they should question the Conservative punditry and re-evaluate just how bright the Republican “strategists” actually are.

FOX News reports:

“‘Obamacare isn’t working,’ [Sen. Ted Cruz] said. ‘There are politicians in this body who are not listening to the people.’

“The feisty senator spoke through the night. His topics ranged from the American revolution and the Washington establishment to his Cuban-born father and the impact of the healthcare law. By 6am EDT Wednesday, Cruz and his fellow GOP conservatives had spoken for more than 15-and-a-half hours, the sixth longest since precise record-keeping began in 1900…

“The speech was reminiscent of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), earlier this year staging an old-fashioned filibuster to voice his concerns over drones.

“Paul joined Cruz on the Senate floor for a time, telling his colleague to make sure he is wearing comfortable shoes for the long night ahead and saying “we’re asking for a dialogue” on Obamacare.

“‘How do we get the dialogue unless somebody’s willing to stand up and say enough’s enough?’ Paul asked.”

Before the brilliance of what Mr. Cruz is doing is outlined, it should be noted that each and every Republican who has run for office since the passage of the ACA (Obamacare) has run on a platform of “defund, repeal and replace.” And while the House has consistently passed bills aimed at repealing Obamacare, none – none – of these efforts could possibly have been taken seriously. Ergo, establishment Republicans have done nothing – nothing – to keep their campaign promises. Conversely, Mr. Cruz and his brethren are keeping their promises; Mr. Cruz and his brethren are actually executing representative government.

Now, three (if not more) by-products come of Mr. Cruz’s efforts.

First, Conservatives have identifieddefinitively – who the RINOs are in the GOP. This will allow true Conservatives to target them in the midterm elections, as well as future elections. Frankly, the day of the RINO looks like it is coming to an end.

Second, this show of dedication to campaign promise and principle has served to foment an expectation among the voters that anything less than a one-year delay of the implementation of the ACA is completely unacceptable to the American people. To wit, even Democrats are now talking about delaying the implementation and re-working the law to codify “agreeable” elements, i.e. covering pre-existing conditions and portability, to name two.

And third, it breaches the “concrete wall” establishment Republicans have erected around the “official message” of the National GOP. By Cruz, Lee and the Senate Conservative Fund taking their message directly to the people, circumventing an impotent and ineffective Republican leadership, they have started the long journey to breaking the Progressives lock on “the narrative.”

The last point, if not all three, makes what Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeff Sessions, Pat Roberts, David Vitter, James Inhofe and Mike Enzi worth the effort…very much so.

Hypocrisy When It Comes To Obama

The nation recently celebrated Martin Luther King’s million man march and famous speech in Washington D.C. in which he declared, ”I have  a dream where we judge a person not by the color of his skin ,but the content of their character.” Enter Barack Obama. Ask anyone why they voted for him and blacks say “Because he’s black”’ and whites say, ”because he’s the first black president,” even though nobody knew anything about him and the  media never properly vetted him. If you dare criticize Obama you are labled a racist. Today there are still many unanswered questions about him from who his real father is, his fraudulent birth certificates (he listed three versions), his fraudulent social security number (they claim it was a typo),his questionable college attendance since there are no records of him attending Occidental or Columbia and no pictures of him  in any yearbooks or newspapers and nobody remembers him at either college, and how a young kid fresh from Indonesia  with no job could afford both colleges and there is no record of him taking out any loans, but he’s the first black president so that’s all that matters and if you criticize him on any of these you’re branded a racist. What happened to judging a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? MLK must be turning in his grave. I wonder what these people think if they knew MLK was a republican?

Recently on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said the reason republicans in congress are reluctant to criticize Obama with the exception of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is because of being labeled a racist.

Well lo and behold, wonder of wonders, two leading Hollywood leftists, Ed Asner and  Mike Farrell are speaking out against their guy Obama on Syria and admit that Hollywood is not speaking out against Obama like they did with George Bush for fear of being labeled anti-black.

Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.

“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said.

Farrell and Asner both say that beating the war drums on Syria is one of many mistakes Obama has made.

“I voted for him, but I’m not proud. He hasn’t thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself. Instead, he has proved himself to be a corporatist, and as long as he’s a corporatist, he’s not my president,” Asner said. “A lot of people have lost hope — with the betrayals, the NSA spying … People aren’t getting active because ‘Who gives a shit?’ is essentially the bottom line.”

Adds Farrell: “I’m frankly deeply disappointed in the president’s foreign policy, war-making, his reliance on military rather than diplomatic responses, his use of drones, continued allowance of the Guantanamo prison. He’s a disappointment to me and other people I know.”

As much as Obama is loved by Hollywood power-brokers, Asner says he doesn’t fear backlash by speaking against the president.

“Hollywood can’t mobilize for that either,” he joked. “If they try to punish me, what are they gonna do? Take away my pension.

Another one speaking out against Obama going into Syria is his biggest cheerleader Chris Mathews. What’s the matter Chris, lose that Obama thrill running up and down your leg?

Many people are viewing  the attack on Syria as a beginning of biblical fulfillment of the coming  end of times with Damascus being leveled “Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city, and will become a fallen ruin,” reads Isaiah 17, a passage some Christians say they believe details a horrific event that leaves the city uninhabitable and leads to worldwide tribulation and the second coming of Christ. Damascus is the Syrian capital and one of the world’s oldest cities.

Another passage in Isaiah 19 deals with civil war in Egypt and the rise of a “fierce king.”

Talk of those prophecies has intensified as President Barack Obama considers a U.S. military strike on Syria in response to what Washington says is evidence that the Syrian leadership used chemical weapons against its own people. In turn, Syria vows to retaliate against neighboring Israel if the U.S. strikes.

Speaking at a news conference in Paris, Sec.of State John Kerry said the videos make clear that the attack is not something Americans can ignore.

The United States has accused Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government of using chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 assault, and cited intelligence reports as saying it killed at least 1,429 people, including more than 400 children. The videos show the victims exhibiting what appear to be symptoms of nerve gas poisoning.

“Those videos make it clear to people that these are real human beings, real children, parents being affected in ways that are unacceptable to anybody, anywhere by any standards,” Kerry said. “And the United States of America that has always stood with others to say we will not allow this – this is not our values, it’s not who we are.”

Where was Kerry when Saddam gassed 5000 people in one day and killed a million of his own people. Kerry, Hilary, Harry Reid and I bet even Obama were castigating Bush for going into Iraq. Kerry bashed our troops just like he did in the 60’s saying “American soldiers were terrorizing Iraqui women and children in the dead of night kicking their doors down.” Now all of a sudden they want to do this “across the bow” strike on Syria that will open up a whole can of worms? Assad has Russia, Iran, and North Korea in back of him while all we have is “moral support” This can kick off  WW 111. Incidentally the so called stockpiles of gas Assad has are the WMD’s we were looking for in Iraq. Saddam had them shipped out before, during and after the war by Russian soldiers disguised  as Iraqis which is why we didn’t find them so Bush didn’t lie after all. Besides, Germany said Saddam had them, France said he had them, Britain said he had them and Saudi Arabia said he had them and he did have them until he shipped them out to Syria.

At a recent press conference Obama’s chief of Staff   Denis McDonough said Obama, Congress and the rest of the world no longer doubt the fact Assad carried out such horrific crimes against his people.” McDonough also said we have no military allies just  their moral support and don’t need them for just a missile strike.

As one commenter noted: “How can we believe ANYTHING, especially since this press conference was filled with BLATANT LIES…

LIE – “We feel very good about the support we have”
….REALITY – Obama et al are HORRIFIED at the broad coalition AGAINST their plans.

LIES – “Nobody now debates the intelligence” – “Everybody believes that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people”
….REALITY – Everyone doubts the intelligence. Many wonder whether the rebels themselves did this to bring us into the war.

LIE – “If chemical weapons are moved to the front lines, it means a greater risk of them being proliferated”
….REALITY – If chemical weapons are moved to the front lines, they will be USED, not “proliferated”

Columnist Kyle Smith in today’s N.Y.Post said,”Ruthless dictators who have been murdering their own citizens by the thousands aren’t likely to be scared by a pre-announced two day show of fireworks. Obama’s message that we should send  in a “clear and decisive very limited way”is another classic. Dictators don’t do limited.They do ruthless. That’s how they passed their final exam in dictator school.”

As columnist Charles Krauthammer  said, ”I say send a text. It’s less expensive.” :D

Ed Asner Explains Hollywood Silence: They 'Don't Want to Feel Anti-Black'...

Syria's 'rebels' and soldiers agree: Military strikes will change nothing...

Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate

OBAMA TO LINK SYRIA WITH IRAN?

Some see biblical visions of doom...

WorldTribune.com: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD on eve of war

PAPER: Regime forces may have used gas without Assad's permission...

Rep. King: Obama Acting More Like ‘Community Organizer’

A Renewal of Spirit

rightonline
More than speeches, Right Online and the Defending the Dream Summit offer a chance for renewal.

With so much stacked against constitutional capitalists; media bias, Hollywood culture, anti-capitalist agenda in our schools; it’s easy to get discouraged and feel like we are fighting a losing battle. But remember this is #WAR, as the late Andrew Breitbart would say, and it will be fought one battle at a time.

Americans For Prosperity is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to education and promotion of the free market that has resulted in America being the most prosperous, most healthy, and most environmentally conscious nation the world has ever known. And for the first time, AFP and AFP Foundation have joined forces to organize hundreds of activists together in one place for both the Right Online conference and the Defending the Dream Summit.

With speakers like Michelle Malkin, Greg Gutfeld, and Senator Ted Cruz, the events are sure to grab media attention, but with breakout educational sessions and networking opportunities too numerous to count, activists from across the country will have the chance to learn the latest strategies for action and be inspired to TAKE ACTION when they return home.

For those unable to make it to Orlando, fear not. You can follow the action online via the Right Online website, CSpan, and of course Twitter, where you will no doubt find live tweeting from your favorite bloggers and radio hosts. Look for the hashtag #RO13 for details.

When you attend, read about, and watch online this weekend’s events in Orlando, allow yourself to be renewed. Renew your spirit. Renew your love of America. And renew your efforts in the fight for freedom and prosperity for all!

Sharpton says Cruz has been a Senator forever

Michael Fleshman (CC)

Michael Fleshman (CC)


Ok, so it was a slip of the tongue, on-air on MSNBC. But, that doesn’t make it any less amusing, and who can pass up an opportunity to point out the stupidity of anything Al Sharpton happens to say?

It’s no secret that Ted Cruz is trying to make a preemptive strike against what probably should be considered inevitable complaints about the fact that he wasn’t born on U.S. soil. Not unlike John McCain, Cruz was born outside of the country, but is a U.S. citizen by merit of the fact that his mother is a U.S. citizen. Yes, this is the point where birthers should be shutting up about Obama, and possibly apologizing to everyone for all the rumors they sent flying over his citizenship status. As far as U.S. law is concerned, citizenship follows the mother – if your mother is a U.S. citizen, you could be born on the Moon, and still be a U.S. citizen. So, that whole “where was Obama actually born” thing shouldn’t have been the question – if there were questions to be raised, it should have been over his mother’s citizenship status at the time of his birth.

But this isn’t about picking on birthers. It’s about pointing out yet another in the long line of stupidity that we see practically daily from Sharpton. He started his career in the spotlight with a lie, so it makes sense that he should continue to keep trying to make himself relevant with silliness. One should not forget that he came to the political scene via the over-the-top political talk show “The Morton Downey, Jr. Show” in the 1980’s, pushing the sensational case of Tawanna Brawley. She lied about being raped by white men, but when she finally admitted that, instead of Sharpton going up in smoke, Downey was left holding the bag. Sharpton went on to play the race-baiting game to this day, and Downey’s television career went downhill fast.

As for Cruz, not only did Sharpton try to play the citizenship issue – in spite of it not being an issue in the first place – but he also decided it was good idea to say that the Senator is a “radical by choice.” Well, perhaps this one should be turned around on the old man trying to keep some semblance of relevancy. Would it really be such a bad thing if Cruz adopted that term? What is really wrong with running a campaign on being a conservative radical? There’s no doubt there’s at least one heavy-hitting conservative commentator out there that would say it would be a great idea. Maybe Cruz needs to look at what Alfonzo Rachel has to say about embracing our radical conservative roots. Cruz could run a campaign that suggests the radical notion of smaller government, free markets, lower taxes, real economic recovery, and maybe even a sensible energy policy – especially since we haven’t had an energy policy in years. Yes, Cruz is a radical. Now to see if he’ll actually embrace that concept, instead of letting the left use it as a weapon against him.

For your amusement, take a look at Sharpton pointing out that Cruz has been a Senator since birth – according to “experts” no less!

Ted Cruz: Abolish IRS and move to a simple flat tax

The now infamous Ted Cruz statement on the abolition of the IRS, and introduction of a flat tax system raises at least a couple important issues. While many fiscal conservatives are undoubtedly salivating over the possibility of making this dream come true, the problem still lies in the concept of whittling down government in an environment where both sides of the aisle are arguably addicted to spending. Flat tax always seems to sound nice, but yet again, this is not necessarily something that will work if implemented. But, it’s always nice to sit back and enjoy a statement about something we all wish could come true easily.

« Older Entries