Video: Senator Ted Cruz Rips Defense Secretary Nominee Chuck Hagel

This is a must-see. Cruz lays in to Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense pretty darned good - and even throws a few clips from interviews Hagel did with Al Jazeera.

Two observations.

1.) It would have been nice to see Senators this tough with Hillary Clinton last week.
2.) It'd be nice to see Democrats this critical of their own (Hagel is a Republican)

Optics and Lies: The problem with Rubio's meeting with Democrats

The first problem with what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when standing with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), on immigration was that he stood with them on anything at all; it's the optics. They cannot be trusted and should not be dealt with. It's much easier to say neither side is working with the other when neither side agrees to do so in the first place. When negotiations breakdown, it's much easier for the Democrats to blame their Republican counterparts.

And they always do because they always lie if it helps their cause.

Case in point - John Boehner's approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations, which he later regretted, even saying he shouldn't have met with Obama, via the Hill:

Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.

Democrats know they'll have Lindsey Graham and John McCain come over to their side on immigration. Those two are old hat. Rubio represents new meat. All the Schumers and the Durbins want is to get Rubio to take that first step, to be seen publicly with them on an issue - any issue. They relish such moments. To Democrats, they're victories in themselves.

While appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show on January 29th, Rubio insisted that this was all preliminary and that he would not support any legislation that didn't have border security at the top of the list. That's good to know but do you know why the Democrats Rubio reached out to agreed to put that in their initial proposal?

Because the optics of having him stand with them were more important than being honest; everything is more important to Democrats than being honest, unless honesty is the more expedient thing to do. The Democrats have become the party of Saul Alinsky, where the ends justify almost any means. Now, when it comes to the optics vs. actually securing the border, the Democrats prefer not doing the latter over the former.

But they know they can have their cake and eat it too. They know that when conservatives see Rubio standing with them, it causes friction and doesn't lend itself to a united party. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats; they don't want to work with them. Too few elected Republicans seem to get that. When conservatives see Republican officials meet with Democrats, they instinctively know that nothing good can come out of it. Whether Rubio's motives may be pure, it's irrelevant. Those with whom he seeks compromise have impure and dishonest motives. Cunning and deceit always beats naivete.

Just look at how Limbaugh opened his show the day after his interview with Rubio:

So what do you think the big immigration news is today?  Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is.  That's exactly right.  In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday.  And you know why?  You know why that's the only immigration news out there?  It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it.  I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles.  He had the guts to take on President Obama.  Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage.  Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this.  Time will tell.  But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview.  "Why are we doing this?  Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time?  How come we're always reactionary and defensive?

Like the Democrats, the mainstream media lies when it furthers their agenda more than does telling the truth. Again, when Republicans meet with Democrats in the name of compromise, it's the Republicans who become compromised. The aforementioned reality enunciated by Limbaugh is perhaps an unintended consequence of Rubio's actions but it's a consequence nonetheless. The narrative that Limbaugh is giving in on amnesty plays in the homes of liberals who only watch the mainstream media and it's like fuel to the fire, whether it's true or not.

There was another telling moment during Rubio's interview with Limbaugh. Take note of what Rubio said here on the 29th:

You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.  It always has been.  I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government.  Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is gonna make their life better, but I think ours, once we sell it, is more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.  It is a challenge.

That sums up the problem with the Republican perspective. Far too often, the attempt is made to compete with the Democrats' ideas instead of shining a spotlight on why they're bad. It's easier to sell a newly christened teenage driver on the appeal and thrill of speeding and recklessness than to convince him to wear his seatbelt and obey the speed limit. An adult will rarely win that argument with a fearless sixteen year-old.

Unless... the teenager is shown film of accident scenes and what can happen when urges are satiated instead of held in check.

Abortion has an appeal to many young women who don't want the responsibility. It's difficult to convince them that responsibility is nobler than murder. The pro-abortionist Democrats convince young teenage women that it's not really murder and Pro-life conservatives are at a disadvantage.

Unless... these young women are made to watch an abortion or even be required to view a sonogram before killing their unborn children.

Rubio may be a well-intentioned freshman Senator but his performance in front of Hillary Clinton last week, coupled with his very ill-advised decision to meet with Democrats who will use cunning to undermine him should demonstrate he's not presidential timber yet.

If he has an awakening between now and 2016, that may change but right now he's behaving like new meat for the Democrats.

Video: Greta interviews Hillary Clinton about Middle East / Benghazi

Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren sat down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss - among other things - Egypt and Benghazi. Those expecting Greta to be a bit tougher on Clinton than was the stable of gelded Republican Senators and Congressmen last week were disappointed but there were some revealing moments.

Commentary after the video:



After exchanging niceties, Clinton refers to the post-Arab Spring in general - Egypt in particular - as a "period of adjustment" and that it's important "not to see these revolutions hijacked by extremists". What she didn't say was that countries like Egypt are adjusting to Sharia law and that the hijacking of those revolutions is a foregone conclusion and was predictable to so many with much less information than Clinton had at her disposal during the early stages of the Arab Spring.

Shortly thereafter, Greta brings up Morsi's 2010 comments, which included him saying the Jews were descendants of "apes and pigs", and that Egypt must "nurse its children on hatred of the Jews". A few hours before Greta's interview, reports came out that a close Morsi aid said the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews secretly moved to the U.S.

Hillary's response?

At the 1:58 mark, she says "We were quite concerned about those statements" and that "the Egyptian presidency has repudiated" the comments.

What more proof does one need that the Democratic Party has more contempt for Christians and conservatives than for the Muslim Brotherhood? Virtually the entire Barack Obama administration, for more than four years, has been engaged in class warfare that involves much more critical and relentless criticism of conservatives who haven't even come close to talking like Morsi.

At the 3:30 mark, when asked about Morsi personally, Hillary said:

"I think he has a lot of the right intentions".

Wait a minute. A leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who also happens to be the President of Egypt has pure intentions?! The intentions of the Brotherhood include the annihilation of Israel and establishing a global caliphate.

Shortly after the 4:00 mark, while mildly defending Morsi, said:

"It's not what somebody says. It's what they do."

You mean like saying Al-Qaeda has been decimated while actually fueling the group's resurgence by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood all over the Middle East?

At the 4:40 mark, the conversation shift's to Morsi's welcoming of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, who is responsible for mass genocide in his country. Clinton doesn't just excuse Morsi for doing so by saying such meetings take place all over the Middle East but check out this quote, delivered by her at about the 5:20 mark:

"He (Bashir) does need to be held accountable for what happened on his watch as President."

Interesting to hear such language coming from Clinton, which makes a nice segue to the question about Benghazi, which is asked shortly after the 12:00 mark. It was a two-part question and just as open-ended as many of the questions asked by Republican Senators and Congressmen at last week's hearings.

1.) Can Americans feel confident that security at embassies and consulates will be sufficient, moving forward?

2.) Should we go back to Benghazi?

Clinton's answer ultimately led to a sales pitch for more money to help keep these installations more secure. Again, like what happened at the Senate and House Committee hearings, that pitch went unanswered by Greta, despite earlier testimony from Charlene Lamb, a State Department bureaucrat, who testified that a lack of funds was not the reason for a lack of security in Benghazi.

In that hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked Lamb if lack of security due to budget concerns. Her answer (at about the 1:45 mark) was "no sir":



Breitbart was not too happy with Van Susteren's failure to ask any follow-up questions of Hillary about Benghazi.