Ted Cruz on the 'defeatist attitude' of Republicans

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave some extremely interesting answers to Todd Gillman's questions. Perhaps the most insightful exchange came when Cruz gave his psychological assessment of Republicans inside the beltway.

Via DMN:

Q. You’re 10 weeks on the job. What have you learned? Has anything surprised you? Is there anything that you’ve needed to retool in your approach?

A. The biggest surprise has been the defeatist attitude of many Republicans in Washington. A lot of Republicans felt beaten down, and that there was nothing they could do to stop the erosion of liberty in this country. I have been encouraged that the last several weeks have demonstrated that there is a great deal we can do to turn things around. Indeed, if you look at the vote on sequester, the filibuster on drone strikes and the vote on defunding Obamacare, for three weeks in a row, Republicans have stood together for principle. And in doing so I believe we are winning the argument. We are doing what the American people expect us to be doing, which is standing for principle, defending liberty and defending the Constitution. I am hopeful the pattern of the last three weeks will prove a recurring pattern going forward. I believe that’s the direction Republicans need to go.

Q. This defeatism is among incumbent senators?

A. Yes. I’m referring to those who have been here a long time and have suffered some difficult election results and who I think were discouraged about being able to get anything done.

Q. So it sounds like you’ve been teaching them a few lessons. Is there anything that you’ve learned on the job yet?

A. What I think all of us have learned together is the power of leaders standing for principle. You asked what I learned. I can tell you the most inspirational moment since I’ve been here has been Rand Paul’s filibuster. When Rand Paul went to the floor at 11:47 am, many of his colleagues viewed what he was doing as curious if not quixotic, as an endeavor that was doomed to failure. … It captivated the attention of the American people as millions of Americans watched Rand Paul and others standing for principle and began engaging directly in the process, on Facebook and email and Twitter….. As a result of Sen. Rand Paul’s courage, the Obama administration was forced to concede in writing that it lacks the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

It is amazing that elected Republican officials felt beaten down because their conservative base felt beaten down by the unwillingness of those officials to fight for them.

Read it all.

Video: Interview with Ted Cruz

In an interview with CBN, U.S. Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz said two very significant things that resonate with true conservatives. One was that Barack Obama is the 'most radical' president we've ever seen. The other is that by failing to stand on principles, many Republicans should share some blame for that 'most radical' president being elected in the first place (ain't that the truth!).

The biggest frustration among conservatives is an unwillingness (cowardice) to fight on the part of Republicans. It's early but Cruz is showing signs of galvanizing such conservatives. A consequence of that - as we found out with Sarah Palin - is relentless media attacks. The good news? Cruz's effectiveness will rise in direct proportion to how much he is attacked in the media.

Via CBN:



Here is the perfect example to demonstrate how best to deal with the media (pay attention, Boehner). After the mainstream media dredged up what they thought would be considered outrageous comments by Cruz years ago - that the Harvard faculty is rife with Marxists - the Senator from Texas did not go on defense; he went on offense with a super-appropriate tweet.

Via Ted Cruz:

MSNBC is shocked -- shocked -- to discover that there are Marxists on the Harvard faculty... youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi0…
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) February 23, 2013

Scarborough syndrome's grip on S.E. Cupp seems to be tightening

After the Republican National convention, S.E. Cupp, who is billed as the lone conservative among three liberals on the MSNBC show The Cycle, expressed outrage over Clint Eastwood's bit with an empty chair starring as Barack Obama. Now, when the subject of a Barack Obama campaign ad that features Lena Dunham blatantly comparing sex with voting for Obama, Cupp is fine with it.

As I wrote at the time, Cupp seems to be coming down with Scarborough syndrome (named after Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough), which can be defined as follows (yes, it's satire):

A condition in which conservatives who are surrounded by liberals every day, find their views increasingly malleable as they incrementally cede what they believe to be minor points in the hopes of gaining acceptance and / or avoiding conflict. This often results in a slow transformation toward the adoption of a new ideology. An interesting dynamic that can help expedite this process occurs when conservatives attempt to challenge the subject on his / her new views. The subject can feel as if he / she is being attacked instead of warned. This, coupled with the subject being defended by his / her newfound liberal friends, facilitates that transformation. Thinking that the conservatives are the ones who changed, the subject identifies even more closely with his / her liberal friends.

In the case of Cupp, all one has to do is look at her reactions in these two instances. She was offended by Clint Eastwood's attempt to use humor at Obama's expense but she's not offended at the Obama campaign's attempt to compare voting for the first time to losing one's virginity in the name of humor.

Via MediaIte:

Indicator conservative bloggers are winning: We're under Joe Scarborough's skin

What set the liberal Joe Scarborough off in this rant was the notion that conservative bloggers think Jeb Bush  is a RINO after learning that Jeb said Reagan 'would have a hard time' in today's Republican Party because of the demands of its conservative base and its alleged unwillingness to compromise with the other side.

Of course, lost on folks like Jeb Bush is that the Democratic Party of today is far, far left of the Democratic Party of Reagan's time and the Republican Party - until the rise of the Tea Party - had gone much further left as well. We now know that Barack Obama lied about being a registered member of a Socialist Party (New Party).

As for compromise, perhaps someone should direct Jeb to the first two years of the Obama administration. Does the $787 Billion Stimulus or Obamacare ring a bell?

Anyway, here is Scarborough taking his liberal indignation up a notch, ripping conservative bloggers and telling anyone who thinks Jeb is a RINO to 'shut the hell up.' Lost on Scarborough is the fact that unlike him, we conservative bloggers aren't beholden to MSNBC Brass the propaganda arm of the Obama administration and don't sit next to a far left socialist (Mika) for several hours every day.

Before you watch the clip, keep this quote in mind (often attributed to Ghandi but origin unknown):

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they ridicule you, then you win.

Take heart, conservative bloggers. Joe Scarborough is in the ridicule stage. You're almost there.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Glenn Beck: 'We're all Catholics now"

I'm cross-posting this from Shoebat.com because this is Glenn Beck at his best.

This is a very compelling video from Glenn Beck. In it, he references a trip he took to the Vatican and discussions he had with Cardinals. According to Beck, those Cardinals understand that the world is moving toward a spiritual war between good and evil and that the Pope has appointed six very socially conservative Cardinals who “get it.”

Walid has long been making the case that the anti-Christ will not be European but Muslim. Adherents to the European anti-Christ model inevitably include the Catholic Church in their calculations but if Beck is right here, the Pope is actually choosing to fight evil. Though Beck doesn’t talk about Islam in this segment, the implication is that the Catholic church is under assault for a reason and it’s not being attacked by forces for good but of evil. After all, it’s currently fighting against things like abortion, which is the murder of the unborn, among the most evil of earthly acts.

Are we to believe that anti-Christ will fight itself?

Beck also references Ephesians 6. Here are verses 10-20 of that chapter, which seem to be the ones Beck is referring to specifically:

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[c] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

 This is one powerful segment:

Video: William F. Buckley vs. Saul Alinsky in 1967

This is only the first five minutes of a full hour but it's definitely worth watching. One conservative icon does battle with the founder of Community Organizing. This exchange is a look into the essence of the modern day battle between the Tea Party and the union thugs. The legacies of both men have ballooned significantly since their deaths. Buckley gets the better of this exchange and Alinsky ends up on the wrong side of semantic battles he actually created. For example, Buckley calls him on a quote attributed to him that referenced 'political pornography' and Alinsky took exception, saying he didn't call anyone a 'political pornographer.' Buckley shoots him down on that issue. The best part comes at the very end; Alinsky basically concedes that Buckley got him after making an analogy using a priest.



h/t to Hot Air

Trump's Conflicting Views on Reagan

To Donald Trump's credit, he had a meteoric rise among the Tea Party. More than anything else, that rise should tell the establishment what voters want - a candidate who will fight, not a leader who will cry (Boehner). To Trump's detriment, his flirtation with the Tea Party is saying more about the power of the latter. Trump was challenged on his abortion stance and suddenly, he's pro-life. In 2000, he wrote very strongly about his support for universal health care. It now appears Trump has a Reagan problem.

Check out this excerpt from Trump's The Art of the Deal. In particular, pay attention to the last paragraph in which Trump questions Reagan's honesty.

Big h/t to Free Republic for this image.



Contrast that with this interview Trump gave to Sean Hannity last week. Via Townhall.

Donald Trump's Abortion Problem

Business tycoon and staunch capitalist Donald Trump is apparently running for president of the United States. His success, his background, and his message are all resonating with many on the right as capitalism itself is under attack; he's one of its biggest proponents. However, if he has even the slightest chance of winning the nomination, it will have to come with a Road to Damascus experience on abortion. So far, it looks like he's simply being political in appealing to social conservatives.

Via CNS News:

Before Trump entered the ballroom at the Marriott Wardman Hotel to speak, CNSNews.com asked him, “Do you think your pro-choice stance will affect your run for president of the United States?”

“Who said I’m pro-choice?” Trump replied before being pulled away by handlers.

In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump said, “I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures."

On Nov. 18, 2010, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, “Are you pro-choice?”

Trump said, “I am -- well, I don't want to discuss right now, but you will be shocked when I give you that answer. … Well, you will be very surprised when I give you -- I'm going to make a decision [about running for president]. And when I make a decision I'll let you know about that. But, I think you'll probably be surprised.”

Then, in an interview yesterday with talk-radio host Laura Ingraham, Trump said, “I am pro-life.”

Trump knows he needs the social conservatives to get any traction. Indications are that's why his position on abortion appears to be more than just slightly malleable. In the past, someone like him might be able to massage his message enough to satiate the conservative base. Not today, however. the Tea Party is too politically savvy to fall for it.

Sorry Donald. Damascus is this way.....

Video: Pamela Geller Calls out Muslim Brotherhood Infiltraitors at CPAC

In the run-up to CPAC, various groups and individuals boycotted the largest Conservative political conference for its allowing GOProud to attend. Others stayed away because of the reports that a man with Muslim Brotherhood ties - Suhail Khan - was on the Board of Directors. I must admit, my inclination was to adopt that view as well, mainly because I didn't think people who opposed Khan - along with the guy who helped put him in the position, Grover Norquist - wouldn't call them out at the event.

Boy, was I wrong. David Horowitz named names as did Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs. Geller took it a step further and explained why it is important for those who know the truth to show up at CPAC and take it back rather than stay away and let it go to the wolves.

Via The Blaze:



Go HERE to watch Suhail Khan deny the Muslim Brotherhood exists in the United States and then watch Horowitz call out both Khan and Norquist during his speech.

Awesome.

Video: Muslim Infiltraitor Busted at CPAC

Suahil Khan is a Muslim who is on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which operates CPAC. His father was a leader in the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and founded the Muslim Students Association (MSA). At CPAC, Khan was confronted about the Muslim Brotherhood and issued a bald-faced lie, saying that 'there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.' One look at the unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial will disprove that completely.

HERE is the list.

The MSA is a Muslim Brotherhood group that Khan's father founded. Its objective is the educate Muslim college students how to move up the ranks of political systems and institutions. It would appear that Khan may have gotten a little too bold in trying to infiltrate the conservative movement during the Tea Party movement.

Folks, this man has been busted as a liar who is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Via Pajamas Media



In light of Khan's lie, the speech at CPAC given by David Horowitz, in which he lays it out, even naming Suhail Khan's father before naming Suhail. Hats off to Mr. Horowitz.

CPAC DIVIDED BY HOMOSEXUAL CONSERVATIVES

Here we go. The battle between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives is heating up within the largest annual meeting for Conservatives - the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). In a classic case of one step up, two steps back CPAC extended an invitation to GOProud only to see two prominent conservative groups, the Family Research Council (FRC) and Conservative Women of America (CWA), drop out.

Via WND:

"We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

"CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud," CWA President Penny Nance told WND.

FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud.

The American Conservative Union, longtime organizers of CPAC, disclosed just before Christmas that GOProud would be considered a "participating organization," the second highest level of participation. As a "participating organization," GOProud has a voice in planning the conference.

The decision followed two hotly contested CPAC board votes over GOProud. The first vote ended in a tie. The outcome of the second vote has not been officially disclosed, but a source at ACU leaked the decision favoring GOProud to the media.

I seem to remember when Barack Obama and Bill Ayers were targeted for heading up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) in 2008, the left came back with the argument that CAC's founder - Walter Annenberg - was a conservative. What we're seeing happen at CPAC could perfectly illustrate what could have happened to Annenberg's legacy; it was incrementally tarnished until it was smeared by the likes of Bill Ayers. HERE is an article from The Swamp from August, 2008 on that very subject.

Besides, I'm partial to what Jim DeMint has to say about fiscal vs. social conservatism:

"You can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative. A large part of the expansive government is to make up for a dysfunctional society because our culture is falling apart; the family is falling apart."- Jim DeMint, November 2010.

The Blaze has more on the CPAC controversy as well as this video of Ryan Sorba at CPAC last year, in which he condemned the conference for inviting GOProud.

VIDEO: CONSERVATIVE HISPANIC SMACKS DOWN WHITE LIBERAL

I'm conflicted. As someone who considers himself a Tea Partier, the left considers me part of a racist group. However, if that's true, why do I pump my fist in support of this hispanic gentleman who comes about as close to spanking a liberal as you can get. Take note that the only response this smug white liberal can come up with is condescension, mocking, and an occasional sarcastic laugh. When it comes to responding to the charges he comes up blank and ultimately walks away.

Via Verum Serum

Bush Blog: Tempers Flare Between Bush Supporters, Protesters from SMUDailyMustang.com on Vimeo.

VIDEO: BARRACK'S CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint (R) is also known as Senator 'Tea Party.' He was featured as one of the candidates on a Fox News segment called '12 in 2012,' which breaks down the 12 most likely Republican presidential candidates two years from now. DeMint has consistently backed Tea Party candidates and continues to catch the ire of establishment Republicans. He is, by far and away, the best candidate for president. As a Senator, he is an anomaly and has proven that when amongst elite establishment politicians at the highest level, he does not compromise his principles. None of the other potential candidates can say that - not even Sarah Palin.

The money quote in this interview from DeMint is when he says, "You can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative." The logic he uses to back that up is indisputable to the intellectually honest. Basically, the social programs implemented by social liberals have bankrupted our culture. Therefore, clean up the social issues, and fiscal responsibility follows.



h/t to Hot Air

VIDEO: BAM! MICHELLE MALKIN SLAMS KARL ROVE

The best quote in this exchange between Malkin and Hannity comes at the end, when Malkin delivers the money line; it had to do with the choice between 'progressive wolves in elephants' clothing' and true conservatives. If there was a mild disappointment, it came from Hannity, who seemed to interrupt Malkin in the middle of her ripping Rove in an apparent attempt to get her to re-direct her anger toward Mike Castle. Malkin seemed to get the hint and do so. It was likely that Hannity didn't want to disparage a Fox News contributor he has a good relationship with so it's understandable.

That said, I would have liked it better if he let Michelle go. If you'd like to view more on what started the feud between Karl Rove and Tea Party conservatives, CLICK HERE.

Via Gateway Pundit

VIDEO: BLACK CONSERVATIVE HAS LIBS RUNNING AWAY

Video shot at the 8/28 'Restoring Honor' rally. It doesn't get any better. This woman is armed with facts and an ability to get them out quickly. On more than one occasion, you can hear her rhetorically ask why her opponents are running away. Let me answer that one - There is no coherent retort available to them.

The subject was the abortion of black babies. This woman works in the inner city and calls out the Democrats for being those responsible since they're the ones elected to run them. She also drags LBJ into it as well.

Via Flopping Aces

LYNN WOOLLEY - MINORITES SHOULD EMBRACE CONSERVATISM

The Secretary of Logic again makes a compelling case. The premise is rooted in the question about why so many minorities find the progressive movement appealing when in many cases, their exodus from other countries is due to the sour fruits of progressivism - tyranny, communism, and bondage.

This is an open letter to immigrants hoping to achieve American citizenship and the right to vote – though it’s all right if some of you multi-generational “progressives” read it as well. Yes, our national demographics are changing. That’s precisely why it’s important to explain why you – as a new American – should embrace the ideals and values of conservatism.

We conservatives want you to join our cause, but we will not pander. We want you to be part of our movement – not because we will give you something – but because conservatism creates prosperity for everyone, including immigrants.

Conservatism is a “way of life” that enables a great country to remain great. It begins with a reverence for the men and women who risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to declare a new nation based on freedom. It holds that with this freedom comes responsibilities, and with these responsibilities comes initiative.

Unfortunately, there must be some reason people have a tendency to revert back to a way of life they hated. Woolley provides a logical reason for why they shouldn't.

Read the whole thing

CLINE: AN OPTIMISTIC TAKE ON OBAMA

Andrew Cline at the American Spectator is providing a new twist to the throw-the-frog-into-boiling water theory (already debunked by Glenn Beck). The argument, I suppose, is that conservatives should be thankful for Barack Obama's election as they eat turkey this Thanksgiving. Why? Well, because he is causing people to become conservative in droves. I know it's hard to digest but here goes:

Conservatives have the country. Obama has the government. Given Obama's remarkably open and constant disdain for the people he was elected to govern, one can make an educated guess what their reaction will be the first time they have a chance to register their feelings at the ballot box.

For giving them such an unexpectedly early opportunity to correct the mistake they made last fall, the American people -- especially conservatives -- ought to be thankful for this president. He is an unapologetically aggressive liberal. For the right, that's a good thing. It means there will be no blurring of the ideological lines in the next two elections.

I understand the argument and it has a historical standard. The Carter years primed the pump for the Reagan years and the thinking goes that Obama - who is actually worse than Carter - is priming the pump for someone to the right of Reagan.

Although he doesn't mention her name, the implication Cline seems to make is that America's long term harm would have been in much greater jeopardy had Hillary Clinton been elected instead. In this case, Cline seems to be referencing Bill's time in office but comparing it to a hypothetical Hillary presidency isn't much of a leap either.

This is no Clinton administration. Governing from the middle and playing to the polls are not behaviors we've seen this year. The Obama team doesn't seem to want to hold power indefinitely. It wants to enact its agenda as quickly as possible, under the apparent assumption (usually correct) that massive expansions of government power are never reversed.

This is speculative for sure but depending on how much damage Obama and the Democrats in Congress do before the 2010 mid-terms, it's definitely a point well-taken. Hillary is much more seasoned and would have been more consciously calculating. She wouldn't be moving this fast but that's only because of that seasoning and appreciation for the triangulation that got her husband two terms.

Read the WHOLE THING

ANTI-WHACK JOB CELEBRITIES: JUST IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING

Whenever I see celebrities lately, the question I always seem to ask is, "How big of a whack job is that person?" For some reason, the majority of celebrities seem to have one thing in common - LIBERALISM.

Have you ever found yourself wondering which ones to root for?

Here's a list courtesy of the AP via WCBS-TV in New York and some of them are getting pretty fed up with Liberalism.