Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Senator Ted Cruz’

Ted Cruz helps clueless liberal commentator understand why Obamagate is such a massive scandal

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took to Twitter Monday to explain in clear terms to a liberal commentator why the “Obamagate” scandal is such a huge deal.

Gabriel Sherman, an opinion writer for the left-wing magazine Vanity Fair, was apparently confused about what conservatives find to be unseemly about the Obama administration’s unmasking of American citizens, including retired Gen. Michael Flynn, in December 2016. Flynn, who was tapped to be President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, was surveilled in conversation with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

“Serious questions for Trumpers,” Sherman wrote on Twitter last Friday. “What is the scandal of unmasking an American official caught on an intercept discussing US sanctions policy with Ambassador of a hostile foreign country that had just launched a massive cyber attack on our election?”

Sherman attempted to explain away the matter by suggesting that to unmask an American “caught” communicating with a foreign official of a hostile country is routine, even advisable. But the question frames the matter incorrectly.

Thankfully, Cruz was there to answer Sherman’s question to perfection:

“Uhh, he was the incoming National Security Advisor & a 3-star general. He’s SUPPOSED to discuss sanctions policy. That’s his job,” Cruz explained. “The unmasking was part of outgoing admin launching a massive sting operation to try to entrap him. Maybe this helps: imagine Bush doing same to Obama.”

The issue is not that Flynn was in conversations with Kislyak, as Cruz clarified, but rather that the surveillance and subsequent alleged perjury trap of Flynn appear to show an effort by the outgoing Obama administration to frame the incoming Trump administration for wrongdoing.

Unmasking” is the action taken by national security officials to reveal the identity of an American citizen who is picked up in surveillance of foreign officials. While it’s true that “unmasking” is not an uncommon process, the compounding evidence surrounding the incident is what has drawn the attention of Trump supporters as well as Republicans in Congress.

Such compounding evidence includes the extremely long list of ex-Obama officials who requested the unmasking of Gen. Flynn — a list that includes former Vice President Joe Biden, former FBI Director James Comey, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Furthermore, it’s odd that Obama officials were concerned about Flynn talking to Kislyak, since in early 2017, the State Department announced that it would help incoming Trump officials make contact with foreign officials.

VIDEO: Ted Cruz UNLOADS on Democrats for using coronavirus bill to push far-left agenda

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) excoriated Democrats from the Senate floor Monday for using the coronavirus relief bill to push their far-left agenda.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) introduced House Democrats’ coronavirus relief bill on Monday after she torpedoed the bipartisan agreement reached by the Senate. Pelosi’s bill includes billions of dollars for items completely unrelated to COVID-19 relief, including:

  • A bailout for the U.S. Postal Service
  • Student loan debt forgiveness
  • Required same-day voter registration
  • Airline emissions standards regulations
  • Study on climate change migration
  • Collective bargaining provisions
  • Increased federal minimum wage for companies that accept government loans
  • Publication of race and pay statistics for corporate boards
  • Dozens of other provisions allocating money to universitiesthe JFK Performing Arts CenterIRSNOAAmuseumsmigration assistance
  • There’s even a requirement that the federal government use more minority banks and credit unions

The bill would cost taxpayers more than $2.5 trillion and would require certain Americans — individuals who make more than $75,000 and couples who make more than $150,000 in 2020 — to pay back the stimulus check, essentially forcing a significant portion of Americans to receive a government loan.

In response, Cruz unloaded on Pelosi and the Democratic caucus for the pork-filled bill.

A number of people have cited the famed quote of Rahm Emanuel: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Sadly, we are seeing the embodiment of that cynical approach right now because all of the people out of jobs, the Democrats are using to push — what are they pushing for? Changing the emissions standards on airplanes.

Mr. president, what the hell do the emissions standards on airplanes have to do with thousands of people dying and millions of people out of work during the coronavirus epidemic? Don’t treat this bill like a partisan Christmas.

Republicans have things we would like to advance, too, things I believe in deeply. You want to talk about what I would like to do? I would like to abolish the IRS. I campaigned all over the country for that. I will continue fighting for that, but I am not standing here with an amendment, saying: As part of this emergency relief, let’s abolish the IRS. There is a place for that political and policy discussion.

The Democrats are pushing wind and solar tax credits. Mr. president, what in the hell does a windmill have to do with this crisis, other than some Democratic lobbyists getting fat and rich, and they are willing to extort a crisis to try to advance their political agenda?

In the end, Cruz said responding to the COVID-19 crisis will “require adults to step up and lead” and urged both Democrats and Republicans to not engage in political gamesmanship.

‘Nuts’: Cruz tells Levin 4th Circuit decision to ban guns is insane

Ted Cruz and Mark Levin CPAC 2017 / @tedcruz | Twitter

Appearing at CPAC 2017, Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) blasted a recent 4th Circuit Court decision upholding a Maryland “assault weapon” ban as “nuts.”

Speaking with Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin, the Texas senator discussed a broad range of topics including term limits on members of Congress, the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and the rogue federal judiciary.

Cruz criticized the Fourth Circuit court decision limiting the individual’s Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

“The Fourth Circuit used to be the most conservative court in the country,” Cruz said. “The Fourth Circuit now, they’ve invented this new test for the Second Amendment.”

The test, Cruz explained, says “the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a weapon if it would be useful in a military context.” The senator noted the absurdity of such a test, given the amendment reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis added.)

“This test isn’t just sort of questionable, it isn’t just a little bit out there. It is nuts!” Cruz exclaimed. “The Second Amendment was designed explicitly to protect weapons that would be useful in a military conflict.” 

He added, “If we were living back in 1789, your musket would be really useful in a military conflict!”

“You want to know the first gun control law in America?” Cruz asked the audience. “The first Congress passed a law mandating that all able-bodied men must own a musket.”

“That’s an individual mandate we could live with,” Mark Levin quipped. hey-leftist


Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in Politics and Economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are Conservative Political Philosophy, the American Founding, and Progressive Rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations: @ChrisCPandolfo.


Commentary: GOP v. Trump: It’s like they’re stupid or something

Commentary March 3, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

GOP v. Trump: It’s like they’re stupid or something (Image via

Romney?  Really?

Sure enough, a tone-deaf GOP establishment (sorry to be banal and use that expression, but it’s accurate enough) deployed Mitt Romney to lob its big volley at Donald Trump after his strong performance on Super Tuesday.  The speech was predictable: a grave-sounding indictment of Trump, delivered with Romney’s characteristically earnest but cheerful demeanor.

Whom did the GOP establishment think it was appealing to with the Romney speech?  That’s a serious question.  Who was the target audience?

If it was aimed at the people who support Trump today, Romney is not the guy to deliver the message.  Those people think Romney and candidates like him have been the Republican Party’s chief problem for the last 30 years.  They think Romney’s the reason we got four more years of Obama in 2012.

If the speech was aimed at convincing the undecided, it was the dumbest speech ever made for that purpose.  It was all about attacking Trump – and on a pretty personal level.  That’s not how you persuade the undecided.

Attacking personalities palls on everyone rather quickly.  It’s a drive-by tactic.  It looks really disproportionate to stage a big, solemn oratorical event just to dump on Trump.

That point leads to the larger one: why have this speech at all?  What does the GOP brand buy itself by attacking Trump, in this stately, strained manner?

If the answer is “more cred with the mainstream punditry and the Washington-centric political class,” well, God help the GOP.  It’s too stupid to live.

Moving on.  Between 30% and 50% of GOP voters, depending on state, have gone for one of Ted  (TX – R) or Marco Rubio (FL – R), but it’s hard to see how the Romney speech could have been aimed at them.  Those voters have (a) decided, and (b) decided not to vote for Trump in the primaries.  Is there something else they’re supposed to do after this speech?

Maybe the speech was intended as the opening salvo in an asymmetrical campaign by the GOP establishment to “broker” the convention in Cleveland.  Like, a signal flare that they’re going to fight this Trump dude, or something along those lines.  If so, it’s a poorly crafted demonstration.  Not only doesn’t it scare anybody, it just makes the Trump divisions more determined.

Even more important, it exposes the GOP establishment further.  It shows the establishment’s hand, and generates opposition to its anti-consensual intentions unnecessarily.  It’s quite likely that every trial balloon about a brokered convention drives more voters to Trump, out of frustration with the GOP leadership’s highhandedness.

That’s the problem with the establishment’s approach: all it does by coming back again and again at Trump is make him stronger.  It’s like the GOP’s top echelon is sending one contender after another at the mythical Antaeus, and every time they throw him to earth, he gains strength.

Of course, if the GOP establishment wants everybody talking about Trump, listening to Trump, listening to other people talk about Trump, focusing on Trump, and waiting to see what Trump will do or say next, then it is doing everything right.

Sending forth Marco Rubio to turn his campaign into an anti-Trump stand-up routine sure worked out, didn’t it?  Maybe it got him a big second-place finish in Virginia.  (Maybe.  Virginia was going to have a high incidence of Rubio voters anyway, because it’s a purple state now.)

But the main thing average, lower-information voters remember about Rubio at this point is a male-appendage joke targeting Trump, and something snarky he said about Trump selling watches.  If you asked those voters what Rubio would do about the bad economy, gun rights, or national security, they couldn’t tell you.

On the other hand, they can tell you Trump wants to build a wall at the southern border.  And now, thanks to the MSM, they can tell you that Trump has disavowed the KKK quite thoroughly – probably more times in the last week than 90% of career politicians in their political lives, and he’s on video doing it.  By the peculiar standard of “disavowing the KKK on national TV,” who out there looks better than Donald Trump?

No matter what they throw at him, it turns into grist for his mill.  It’s like watching the Coyote tilt fruitlessly at the Roadrunner, and end up over and over being punched through the edge of a cliff by a falling anvil.

It’s more melancholy than funny to watch, although it has its moments. Perhaps the most poignant moment in recent politics was Romney’s invocation today of the Reagan “Time for Choosing” speech. (Transcription from CNN; link above.)

“I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country,” Romney said in Utah at the Hinckley Institute of Politics Forum.

The Reagan speech resounds in conservative hearts as a watershed in their, and their country’s, political fortunes, and for good reason.  But the truth is, there’s no one who sees Romney and the GOP establishment as the trustees of that legacy.  And that would be because they merely deploy Reagan’s words and tone – in this case, for a cheap and ineffectual purpose.

What did Romney pull the Reagan big gun for?  Not to inspire his listeners.  To attack Trump.  Here’s the rest of his passage:

“His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.”

So, by portentous analogy, Donald Trump is a threat to America on a par with Soviet international Communism.  We’re staring into the abyss of a thousand years of darkness, because of Donald Trump.  Or something.

The implication here is really over the top, as Jeff Dunetz correctly pointed out (on a related theme) yesterday.  And that’s an important exit point.  When it comes to being over the top, the GOP establishment is up against the master.  It’s out of its league.  It can’t win on this battlefield.

I doubt it’s going to learn much between now and Cleveland.  Sarah Palin, whatever her faults, understands much better what’s going on in the Republican electorate.  And there’s a reason for that.  It’s because she sees things from the perspective of the ordinary, middle-class people who are bearing the entire burden of the 20th century’s old consensus: bloated, intrusive government, a government that despises the people and sucks them dry.

Start with respecting that, GOP leaders.  No one who doesn’t have a heart, first, for the people and their liberty is going to prosper in trying to wrest the GOP nomination from Trump.  You can take that to the bank, with my signature on it.

J.E. DyerJ.E. Dyer

J.E. Dyer is a retired Naval Intelligence officer who lives in Southern California, blogging as The Optimistic Conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace. Her articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s Contentions, Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard.



true battle Die In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Cruz fires back at Washington Post with his own political cartoon

waving flagPublished December 24, 2015,

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz fired back at The Washington Post with a political cartoon of his own portraying the paper as one of Hillary Clinton’s “lapdogs,” after the Post ran a cartoon depicting his daughters as monkeys.

The newspaper pulled that Cruz cartoon Tuesday from its website, saying “it’s generally the policy of our editorial section to leave children out of it.”

But the incident touched off a firestorm, as Cruz lambasted the paper for mocking his children and other candidates leapt to his defense.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Texas senator escalated his criticism by tweeting his own sketch — of Clinton walking two “lapdogs,” named The Washington Post and The New York Times. 


Speaking to reporters in Tulsa, the senator said he generally has thick skin but was irritated after seeing the Post cartoon.

“Not much ticks me off, but making fun of my girls? That will do it,” Cruz said. “Don’t mess with my kids. Don’t mess with Marco’s kids. Don’t mess with Hillary’s kids. Don’t mess with anybody’s kids.”

He said he appreciated the newspaper pulling the cartoon. “That was the right thing to do,” he said.

The cartoon was done by Ann Telnaes, who apparently published it in response to a Cruz online ad showing him reading politics-related Christmas stories to his daughters, 7-year-old Caroline and 4-year-old Catherine.

After that ad, Telnaes said on Twitter: “Ted Cruz has put his children in a political ad- don’t start screaming when editorial cartoonists draw them as well.”definetly

She then produced the cartoon, which depicted Cruz as an organ grinder dressed in a Santa Claus costume while two similarly-clad monkeys danced on leashes in front of him. The cartoon was captioned, “Ted Cruz uses his kids as political props.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

VIEW BROADCAST OF THIS STORY BELOW:<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=""></a></noscript>&#8221; href=”http://<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=""></a></noscript>”&gt;<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=""></a></noscript&gt; aligncenter wp-image-21594″ src=”; alt=”cruz” width=”762″ height=”552″ /> In God We Trust freedom combo 2



Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

waving flagGOP Meltdown | Political Cartoons | A.F. Branco 

GOP Meltdown evident by the support for perceived outsiders Trump and Cruz.

no more rinos Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

What Obama just did is UNFORGIVABLE. (Hint: it’s 7 letters)

waving flagWritten by Allen West on August 5, 2015

If there is one thing absolutely true about the liberal progressive left, it is the fact that they hate the truth, and will doggedly attack anyone using it against them. Truth The New Hate Speech

We are watching the left do its darndest to defend the indefensible, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — always beware when politicians use the word “comprehensive” — which is the official name of the Iranian nuclear agreement. Funny thing, it says “joint,” but the Iranians are telling the Americans we cannot take part in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspections — and it has been revealed that there are secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran. The Iranian emissary to the IAEA stated that the terms will not be disclosed to any other country — so much for “joint.”Party of Deciet and lies

And the left is all in an apoplectic uproar because Senator Ted Cruz called out President Obama on the Iranian deal. As reported by Politico, “According to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is essentially financing terrorism. And he’s not backing down after the president called his comments “outrageous.” 

“If this deal is consummated, it will make the Obama administration the world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism,” Cruz said during a round table [last] Tuesday. “Billions of dollars under control of this administration will flow into the hands of jihadists who will use that money to murder Americans, to murder Israelis, to murder Europeans.” muslim-obama

What I find “outrageous” is that President Barack Obama would refer to Senator Cruz’s assertion as “outrageous”. So what DO you call it when you are the president of America and you threaten a veto against the U.S. Congress if it does not consent to the JCPOA that releases billions of dollars to the world’s number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism?

I know, we just have to sit back and allow the Emperor — who truly has no clothes — do whatever he wishes, including funding a militant Islamic theocratic regime that chants “Death to America?” I know, all my leftist supporters believe Iran and the ayatollahs are just kidding.Indenification of Obama

And why take the word of Senator Cruz, or even someone like myself who has been in Iraq and Afghanistan and knows the terrorist support and influences of Iran? Nah, my assessment is worthless in light of Barack Obama and all his vast experience in Middle East community organizing.

However, what about the word of someone who has intimate knowledge of the terrorist activity and support of Iran against our men and women in the Middle East? Now, in full disclosure, the person to whom I am referring was once a Commanding Officer of mine in the 4th Infantry Division when I was an Artillery Battalion commander.

As written in the Weekly Standard by Lieutenant General Michael Barbero (US Army, Retired), “One man was responsible for the deaths or injuries of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq. That same man is responsible for sowing sectarian conflict today in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And yet, in the nuclear deal with Iran, this man, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Major General Qassem Suleimani, will have sanctions lifted against him. Indeed, he will receive a large infusion of cash to wreak more havoc and terror. Obama Muslim collection

Having served in Iraq, having experienced first-hand his proxy operations against American forces, and having lost men to Gen. Suleimani’s terror operations, I find this offensive. Preventing a nuclear Iran is a critical national security objective. We should seize any real chance of achieving this goal diplomatically. Whether the agreement negotiated in Vienna, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), will keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands is a question that should be vigorously debated.

But it is appalling that we would agree to lift sanctions on a known terrorist in pursuit of this nuclear deal. President Obama claims to be under no illusions about the Iranian regime and its murderous activities. Even in defending the JCPOA, he has admitted that, “we’ll still have problems with Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism: its funding of proxies like Hezbollah that threaten Israel and threaten the region, the destabilizing activities that they’re engaging in, including in places like Yemen.” Behind all these problems stands one organization, and behind that organization, one man. Within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Quds Force is responsible for special operations, including training, arming, and giving instructions to the terrorists, insurgents, and proxies that Iran uses to spread chaos across the Middle East. The head of the Quds Force is Major General Qassem Suleimani.

Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Quds Force mobilized and trained Shiite militias within Iraq for the purpose of killing Americans. This proxy campaign against United States forces was abetted by a particularly lethal weapon: explosively formed projectiles (EFPs). A form of roadside bomb with a sophisticated triggering mechanism and the ability to penetrate American armor, EFPs were estimated to account for 20 percent of U.S. deaths. And they came from only one place. “We knew where all the factories were in Iran.” General Stanley McChrystal, then head of the Joint Special Operations Command, told the New Yorker. “The E.F.P.s killed hundreds of Americans.”

I’ve spoken about the EFPs previously in interviews and on this website. So I must ask, what part of President Barack Obama financing Islamic terrorism do you NOT understand? What is confusing about what LTG Barbero just stated? If anyone knows, LTG Barbero does, because he served 46 months over three combat tours in Iraq, including serving as the senior operations officer in Iraq during the surge. And LTG Barbero also served as the Commanding General of JIEDDO (Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization). So if there’s anyone who knows the IEDs and from whence they come, it is my former Assistant Division Commander, LTG Barbero. Then again, why listen to him, especially when you have General Valerie Jarrett and all her vast experience in combat operations and the Iranian influence — the country of her birth.

If you want to draw a parallel, consider the Iranian Quds force the same as the Nazi SS during World War II. They are just that vicious and murderous, devoid of any sense of humanity. This is the organization which will be the recipient of Obama’s billions of dollars of goodwill. And please, again, do not give me the surrender monkey song about the only other alternative is war. Guess what Einsteins? Iran and the Quds force have been at war with America, and as LTG Barbero states, 20 percent of US deaths in Iraq came at the hands of Iran — chances are thousands were maimed.against America

So to all the liberal progressive leftists, take your unrighteous indignation elsewhere. Senator Ted Cruz was correct in his assertion and I know that facts and truth are to liberal progressives as sunlight is to vampires. However, it is time we stop trying to create some fantasy world surrounding this abhorrent acquiescence called the JCPOA.

ObamabotBarack Obama has signed an agreement with the same folks responsible for the deaths and maiming of Americans. Iran has continued to state that nothing changes in their relationship and position towards the United States. Perhaps those inane Hollywood talking heads who were mouthpieces for Obama and this Iranian agreement should visit one of the families who lost their loved ones to an Iranian EFP. Look into the eyes of the children who lost a mom or dad and tell them, we need to release billions of dollars to the crazed clerics in black robes.Obamabot Army

You want to know what is truly “outrageous?” The fact that the President of the United States is more concerned about his insidious and delusional legacy than honoring the men and women who carry the scars or lost their lives because of Iran. Yes, he is content to allow this to happen.

The U.S .Code refers to actions of aiding and abetting the enemy, as well as providing material support and comfort…releasing billions of dollars in unfrozen assets to Iran is in complete violation of U.S. Code. Iran is the enemy and Obama is financing the enemy. I know what that’s called. Do you?freedom combo 2

Ted Cruz and Pro-Life Groups Lead White House Rally to Save Meriam Ibrahim

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 6/12/14 11:46 AM

SIGN THE PETITION! Save Meriam Ibrahim, Don’t Hang her to Death for Her Faith

With some news reports indicating Meriam Inbrahim may be days or weeks away from a brutal pre-execution flogging because of her refusal to backtrack on her Christian faith, pro-life Sen. Ted Cruz and leading pro-life groups staged a rally outside the White House today on her behalf.

meriam15Meriam Ibrahim is not sentenced to die for her Christian faith for two years, until such a time as her newborn baby girl Maya is weaned, but she could be flogged within days if her appeal of her death sentence is thrown out. LifeNews recently covered the terrible nature of the flogging she will have to endure and how it will literally take her skin off of her body.

Meriam’s case has drawn international outrage. Meriam was jailed in September despite the fact she was pregnant, because she married a Christian – when authorities claim she is Muslim. Sudanese leaders suggested she may be freed weeks ago as international outrage grew – but there is still no sign of her release. She was forced to give birth to daughter, Maya, in prison, shackled to bed.

Now, human rights advocates have released a video of another woman flogged in public to highlight her case. In the video, dated 2010, the woman begs for mercy as police laugh and joke.

Responding to concerns about a potential flogging and knowing the Obama administration has done very little to support her plight, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America led a Save Meriam rally today.

“Today we are here to talk about Meriam Ibrahim, who is being imprisoned for her faith, specifically because she is a Christian. And not just her, but also her two children, one of which she gave birth to in chains.  As Christian women, we are talking today about Sudan but also pointing to the plight of women around the world. Women of faith are being persecuted and little girls are forced into marriages at very young ages. Meriam shines a light on this corruption and persecution,”Penny Nance, president of CWFA, said.

She added: “CWA members are here today wearing chains to remind us of the torture that she is being put through. So today I’m here to tell the President to stop going around the world apologizing for us. We are an exceptional nation, we love our country, we believe in our values, especially religious freedom and we want everyone to share in that God given right, not from the White House, but from our Creator. We are standing here today to speak for someone who is our sister in Christ who cannot speak for herself. We also pray for the Nigerian girls. Hashtag diplomacy is not enough. We want to see results.”

Nance concluded: “I am mortified by what is happening to this woman and I am calling today on our President and our State Department to rescue Meriam Ibrahim. She deserves our support. Why are we allowing her to be tortured?”

Below are some of the pictures from the rally, including a photo of Senator Cruz and one of Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona. All pictures come to LifeNews from CWA and FRC.




Congressman Trent Franks:


Sen. Ted Cruz:




FRC’s Tony Perkins:




Ted Cruz: ‘Hell Will Freeze Over’ Before Establishment GOP Listens To American people

by Matthew Boyle 13 Feb 2014

 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told conservative radio host Mark Levin on Thursday evening that establishment GOP politicians will “never” listen to the American people.

“If we wait on the entrenched politicians in Washington, hell will freeze over before that happens,” Cruz answered when Levin asked whether Republicans will ever listen. “This is nothing new. The answers come from America, from millions of people standing up and holding elected officials accountable.”

Cruz, who coined the Twitter hash tag #MakeDCListen during the government shutdown episode, has often returned to a theme of forcing Washington D.C. insiders to listen to the public.

He noted that in the prelude to the shutdown, many Republicans preferred to push for spending cuts with the debt ceiling as leverage.

“A few months ago, when we were fighting trying to stop the disaster that is Obamacare, where a lot of Washington gray beards said, ‘we are going to fight on the debt ceiling. That’s where the fight will be,’” Cruz said. “It’s like they think the American people are a bunch of rubes, we don’t remember what they say.”

Wednesday, Cruz forced a procedural roll call requiring a 60-vote majority on the “clean” debt ceiling bill, despite Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forceful urging he allow the legislation to go through with only a bare-majority vote. Cruz said Republicans should have united against the cloture motion, preventing the debt ceiling from being raised.

“If 41 Republicans had stood together and just voted no, the clean debt ceiling, the blank check for President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want would have been denied,” Cruz said. “And for all of them who say I am just a crazy rebel, the last 55 times the debt ceiling has been increased, Congress has attached meaningful conditions to it 28 of those times. It’s the only leverage point that has ever been effective.”

Cruz said earlier in the interview that many Republicans in the U.S. Congress wanted to increase the debt ceiling. “Make no mistake about it,” Cruz said. “This was their desired outcome. An awful lot of Republicans wanted exactly what Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid wanted, which is to raise the debt ceiling. But, they wanted to be able to tell what they view as their foolish gullible constituents that they didn’t do it, and they’re mad because by my refusing to consent to [a bare-majority vote] they had to come out in the open and admit to that.”

Cruz’s move to force the 60-vote procedural tally forced a dramatic, hour-long vote in which McConnell and GOP Whip John Cornyn scrambled to find enough Republicans to join Democrats and invoke cloture. During the vote, the clerk abstained from a decades-long practice of announcing each vote into a microphone as it was cast, preventing the public from knowing who had already voted and thus, who was switching their votes. McConnell and Cornyn ultimately joined in voting for cloture, after which six of their GOP colleagues switched to join them, providing additional political cover.

Hear the conversation Mark Levine had with Senator Cruz here;


House Judiciary versus the imperial President

House Judiciary versus the imperial President

By: John Hayward  12/5/2013 09:42 AM

Fox News relates some stern criticism of our imperial President from this week’s House Judiciary Committee hearings:

Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., says the president, “doesn’t have a debate in the Oval Office about what he wants to do,” adding, “he does what he wants to do, and then you no longer have representative democracy.”

George Washington University law professor and Obama supporter Jonathan Turley says he’s troubled by the expansion of executive power under both President George W. Bush and now President Obama.

“The problem of what the president is doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid: that is, the concentration of power in any single branch,” he said.

Rep. Goodlatte, who called the hearings, appeared on Fox News with Megyn Kelly to discuss them afterward:


The unitary executive had his defenders, too:

Article II of the U.S. Constitution calls on the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, says that’s exactly what President Obama is doing by modifying the ACA so that the law can be successfully implemented.

Lazarus also testified before the committee.

“I have to say that hyperventilating about how extraordinary and unprecedented and unconstitutional these delays are is just that, it’s hyperventilation and it’s contrary to obvious historical fact,” Lazarus said.

That’s an absurd rationalization, if not downright creepy.  Presidents have unlimited power to violate the law in order make sure it’s “faithfully executed?”  We had to break the law in order to preserve it. We had to burn the village in order to save it.

What Lazarus presumably means is that the President can do whatever it takes to ensure the “spirit” of a law succeeds, or that it meets its true “goals”… as defined unilaterally by him.  Goodbye, separation of powers, checks and balances, Constitutional order, and all the rest of those antique notions from the pre-totalitarian era.  The way it works now is, Congress agrees that something wonderful should happen, and the dictator-President makes sure it does.  If you don’t like it, you can vote him out of office in four years.  Or take it out on his designated successor, in the case of a lame duck like Barack Obama.

Though experts testifying before the committee mentioned impeachment as the ultimate check on executive power, Republicans on the committee gave the idea no real consideration – given that the Senate is controlled by Democrats. They also expressed frustration that under current legal precedent it is virtually impossible for members to sue the executive branch.

The experts seemed unified in expressing to the committee that the one viable solution “comes down to elections.”

What elections?  The whole point of the imperial Presidency, and the dissolution of the Republic, is that congressional elections don’t really matter all that much.  The lesson of the recent government shutdown is that the House of Representatives is almost entirely symbolic – it has little real power now.  Control of the House means you get to hold hearings where experts say it’s a pity the House doesn’t have its enumerated powers any more.

The Senate still  has some real power, but you might have noticed that the current Democrat majority has been busy stripping the minority of influence, using the very same maneuvers Democrats denounced as unspeakable offenses to the Constitution and the spirit of 1776 when they were the minority, in opposition to a Republican president.  At this point, in all but a few respects, a President whose party commands 51 Senate seats holds virtually unlimited power, except for a few instances – certain to be far more common if Republicans hold the White House and Senate – where strong bipartisan opposition to the President takes shape.

It cannot be said enough that Americans would be absolutely foolish to accept a single presidential vote every four years as an adequate check on power.  Obviously the framers of the Constitution didn’t think that was good enough.  Too many modern voters have squandered their legacy of limited government because they view the President as the one official “everybody” votes for, so the unitary executive who can supersede or disregard Congress seems reasonable to them… when it’s a Democrat, of course.  It seems quaintly amusing today, but liberals were very upset by George Bush’s allegedly unitary powers, back in the day.  Their arguments make for hilarious comedy reading in light of the dizzying imperial powers asserted by Barack Obama, with virtually no objections from the people who thought Bush was pushing the boundaries of his office.

We hear a lot of talk about “consensus” and the “will of the people” these days.  Not to be overly alarmist, but you will search history in vain for the record of a single tyrant who did not claim to be exercising the will of the people.  In the modern American context, it’s foolish to accept the assertion by Obama defenders that a single presidential election expresses “the will of the people” for four years, with opposition becoming tantamount to “sabotage” or “treason.”  There isn’t much that a huge, diverse country full of independent people reaches a true “consensus” on.  The rough and tumble of congressional debate, complete with all its “stalemate” and “gridlock,” is a more accurate reflection of our national debate about important issues.  If we have a Congress that doesn’t get things done, maybe that’s because there aren’t a lot of things we agree, on a national scale, that we want the federal government to do.  Elections are not supposed to be punitive exercises against benevolent dictators who didn’t satisfy 51 percent of the electorate.

What Obama has done, particularly with respect to ObamaCare, goes far beyond exercising executive discretion to hammer out a few dents in an otherwise sound, faithfully executed law.  He keeps doing things he has absolutely no statutory authority to do, and rarely even bothers to argue to the contrary.  His “argument” always boils down to “I think it’s the right thing to do, and I don’t want to argue with Congress about it.”

But “arguing with Congress” is a vital component of the American system.  To put it bluntly, if the President’s big brainstorm only works when he can rewrite the law on the fly, his program is garbage that is utterly incompatible with the American system of government.  No representative of any party, in either chamber, should vote for a “law” that only “works” if the President can violate it at will.  (Or, in the case of Obama’s largely forgotten insurance cancellation “fix” from a few weeks ago, invite other people to violate it, and promise not to prosecute them for a year.)

That’s not a law.  It’s an assertion of raw power.  There is a difference.  American government is supposed to be about law, not power.  Laws bind those who pass them.  Laws bind the government, as well as the people.  There are plenty of reasonable mechanisms for modifying or repealing laws that don’t work as planned.  Even the Constitution has an amendment process, which has been used many times.

But following those processes dilutes the power of a dictatorial President and power-hungry party, because it means the opposition party gets to weigh in and extract concessions.  Obviously the petulant Obama doesn’t want that.  He wasn’t about to submit his proposed delay of the ObamaCare mandate to Congress for proper debate and ratification, so he did what the American system expressly forbids, and made unilateral, arbitrary changes to the law for nakedly political reasons.  If the Affordable Care Act actually was “faithfully executed” as written, with the employer mandate kicking in on schedule, the ACA would most likely have been repealed by now, with a veto-overriding bipartisan majority driven by public outrage.

And that’s the way it should be.  Presidents and congressional representatives should be afraid to pass laws that could blow up in their faces.  They should be afraid of suffering from their hubris and arrogance.  If there’s one thing America desperately needs right now, it’s humble government.

But we’re not going to get humble government any time soon, because as the House Judiciary hearings illustrate, there’s really nothing anyone can do about the imperial presidency at the moment.  The ugly political genius of Barack Obama involved calling every bluff in the American system, which long ago degenerated past the point where any serious penalties awaited the aspiring dictator.  In a real sense, that business about “elections” being the remedy for abuse of power means the media is the only real remaining check against presidential power.  If the media doesn’t repeatedly tell people to get angry about something, and keep them good and riled all the way through an election, there’s no price to pay.  Obama correctly judged he would never have to face that kind of press coverage.

The polite understandings and gentlemen’s agreements from previous years were swept aside like so many cobwebs by Obama, to replaced by a simple implied challenge: What are you gonna do about it, impeach me?  He knows the answer is “no,” so he does as he pleases, with just enough restraint to keep his media allies from growing queasy.  That’s not how America is supposed to work, and it’s no surprise that the results have been dismaying.

Update: Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) made some of these points during an interview with Fusion TV:


(Hat tip: Washington Examiner.)   Cruz makes an interesting point about dictatorship: it can exist without Castro-style imprisonment of dissidents.  Dictators are always interested in suppressing dissent, but there are many less brutal ways of achieving that goal.  The dangers of centralized power are not eliminated because it wears velvet gloves.  It increasingly seems that Obama apologists make the argument that he’s not a dictator almost entirely based on the absence of gulags, as though any seizure of power that doesn’t involve tossing dissidents into concentration camps is acceptable.  And it’s not as if this President has been shy about using the power of government to punish dissident Americans, and their political organizations,  in a variety of interesting ways…

Ahem, There Is An Obama Cure


Screen Shot 2013-11-16 at 6.17.31 PM

Obamacare is making us sick.

Just the very idea of any law being thousands of pages long in the first place is enough to give you a queasy feeling in your head and stomach.  I even get a bit nauseous merely buying stuff at the supermarket,  when the self-checkout computer thing starts spitting out seemingly endless coupons and a receipt longer than my arm.

As a general rule, I don’t trust any document involving more than a single page, especially when lawyers are required to administer it.  There comes a point where you know they’ve got something over you, and it’s only made much, much worse when the bureaucrats are suddenly in charge of even more of your most personal medical/financial decisions and information.

Obamacare, like so many horrible governmentschemes, exists only because socialist flim-flam artists sold it as an alleged way to “help people.”  Just over half the country smelled the scam and tried in vain to stop it, but it was shoved down our throats by Democrats who controlled both the legislative and the executive branches.

Those who really know the score have studied and understood the “Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis,” and that all of this chaos and economic devastation is really the core of what Obama hinted at when he howled in exultation about “fundamentally transforming” our country, five days before winning his first presidential election.

In a valiant stand a month ago, Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee led the charge to try to head off the funding/implementation of Obamacare, only to be betrayed by craven fellow Republicans, stonewalled by democrats, and vilified by the corrupt, leftist media for the fiscal impasse and partial government shutdown which resulted.

My, how things have changed in a month.

Suddenly, not only is it looking somewhat safe to be a Republican again, Ted Cruz can grin and know that he’s coming up smelling like a rose after all.  He was right in trying to stave off the disaster which Obamacare is proving to be.  And speaking of betrayal, Americans have been rudely awakened to the fact that Obama brazenly lied to them over and over and over and over again, again and again, in order to carry out the scam.

So now democrats and even Obama himself are lifting their cues from Ted Cruz, calling for a “fixes” for the debacle that poetically align with the kind of prescriptions which Cruz and the Tea Party brain-trust have been proposing all along, especially while he was increasingly being treated like a political pariah.

Tea Party Texas Senator Ted Cruz is the OBAMACURE.

Even democrats are now so desperate that they’re clamoring for the life-saving antidote, though they still refuse to ask for it by its proper name.

Politics is an extremely tricky business, but if there’s any justice in this world (and it’s actually starting to look again like there might be) the Tea Party contingent and Ted Cruz will be able to pick up the reins, somewhat master the media, and lead our country out of this socialist morass.  Ideally, Obama and his entire administration will resign in order to try to avoid impeachment/prosecution–but of course that’s just my idealistic dreaming.

For the time being, until the full-blown Republican revolution comes, I’ll settle for a gradual, generic remedy of the worst symptoms.

Let’s keep supporting upright, courageous public servants like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and their Tea Party brothers and sisters.

About the author: Donald Joy

 Following his service in the United State Air Force, Donald Joy earned a bachelor of science in business administration from SUNY while serving in the army national guard. As a special deputy U.S. marshal, Don was on the protection detail for Attorney General John Ashcroft following the attacks of 9/11. He lives in the D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia with his wife and son.

I Cruz With Ted


It has been a long time since Republicans and particularly Conservatives have a politician to THANK. But we need to thank Ted Cruz. We want to gather 100,000 “signatures,” and thank Ted Cruz.

We need to send a message to other Republicans that we outnumber those who vote to steal our money, and we will stand firmly behind those who protect our rights.

Let’s let Senator Cruz know that he is supported, and we won’t forget his courage. This not so much a petition, but rather a gathering of emails to offer to Senator Cruz so he knows that our organization and partners stand with him, shoulder to shoulder, and we will back him 100 percent!



Cruz Control should be standard on GOP models

By: Ann Coulter
9/25/2013 04:46 PM

If I could briefly interrupt the Republican firing squad aiming at Ted Cruz, let’s talk about something we all agree on. And by “we all,” I mean a majority of the American people, the Teamsters, many Democrats and every single last Republican.

Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster.

It was passed illegally without the House ever voting on the Senate bill and became law absent a single Republican vote — even “the girls from Maine” and “the girl from Arizona” — the only major legislation ever enacted on a strict party-line vote. The Supreme Court had to violate the Constitution’s separation of powers to uphold Obamacare as a “tax” — despite the fact that no elected body could ever have enacted such a massive tax hike even with the sleazy parliamentary tricks used to pass this bill.

Proving that everyone hates it, Congress has now exempted itself from Obamacare’s provisions, having asked for, and received, a waiver from President Obama.

Yes, these are the exact same politicians who lecture us that Obamacare is “the law of the land!” (So are our immigration laws.) The same ones who huffily announce that the Supreme Court upheld it! (The court also upheld the First Amendment in Citizens United, but that doesn’t stop Obama from demanding Congress overturn the First Amendment.) They are the same sanctimonious frauds who tell us that Obamacare is “the right thing to do!”

Those guys waived Obamacare for themselves. If national health care is so great, why don’t they want it?

In every single category of Crap Forced On the Country by the Left, liberals always have a work-around for themselves.

They love the public schools and denounce school choice — but their kids go to St. Albans or Sidwell Friends. As Al Gore responded to a question from a black journalist for Time magazine who asked him why he opposed school vouchers while sending his own kids to private schools, “My children — you can leave them out of this!”

Oh, now I see.

Liberals are always eager to release criminals and block crucial crime-fighting strategies such as stop-and-frisk — which they announce from the safety of their antiseptic, crime-free neighborhoods. They love the homeless, but try putting a homeless shelter in their doorman buildings.

They tell us guns won’t protect us — and then we find out the loudest of them all have armed guards. Staunch gun-control advocate Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago had three armed guards with him at all times, as well as an armored car. Mayor Rahm Emanuel also has armed guards and an armored car.

Chicago aldermen are allowed to carry any guns they like. But until very recently (we hope!) the people of Chicago were virtually prohibited from being armed.

Liberals love affirmative action — provided their offspring still get into Harvard, Yale or Princeton. How about they give up their kids’ seats to disadvantaged minorities?

Are you beginning to see the pattern?

Class warriors Warren Buffett and the Nation magazine’s Katrina vanden Heuvel hired phalanxes of lawyers to fight the IRS when informed they weren’t paying the government what they owed. George Soros and the Kennedy family stash their money in offshore accounts, safe from U.S. taxation.

Liberals also strongly support every manner of environmental regulation — unless it blocks the view from the Kennedy compound. In deference to Teddy Kennedy’s ferocious opposition to wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod, the federal government reduced the number of turbines, moved them farther off the coast and ordered them painted white to blend in with the view.

And now these government do-gooders shoving Obamacare down our throats have managed to exempt themselves from its wonderful provisions. Supreme Court justices won’t have to suffer under Obamacare, but will continue to have their health care subsidized by us, the hapless taxpayers forced into this rotten system.

Unfortunately, most Republicans are too stupid to notice that Democrats are walking around with a gigantic glass jaw. Democrats must not be able to believe their dumb luck. Instead of hitting our glass jaw, Republicans have decided to attack Ted Cruz!

Cruz, and his Senate colleague Mike Lee (who, for some reason, is being held harmless by both Democrats and Republicans), have demanded that the Senate vote on the House bill fully funding the entire government — except Obamacare. Most important, they want Democrats to allow more than one amendment to that bill.

The Democrats are refusing either of those options in the Senate.

Among the amendments Republicans might want to introduce is one requiring members of Congress and their staffs to live under Obamacare. Or an amendment delaying the law’s implementation for the whole country — and not just the big employers favored by Obama. And also an amendment taking the administration of Obamacare out of the hands of the utterly corrupt IRS.

Can we at least get Senate Democrats to vote on these urgent reforms? I’d especially like to see the votes of red state Democrats, such as Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich and Mark Pryor. I bet their Republican opponents in the midterm elections next year would, too.

Of course, for Cruz’s threat to work, it has to be credible. Too bad Republicans have been blanketing the airwaves proclaiming that: (1) They don’t have the votes to defund Obamacare; and (2) Republicans will get blamed in the event of any government shutdown.

Republicans: You never had to shut the government down! (And thanks for making it blindingly clear that you never intended to.) You could have waited to see how the public opinion was going and cried uncle at the last minute.

But instead of attacking Obamacare and the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Democrats over this massively unpopular law, far too many Republicans have been spending their time attacking Ted Cruz. (Why didn’t we see one-tenth as much venom directed at Sen. Marco Rubio for trying to give the Democrats 30 million new voters with amnesty as we have toward Cruz for trying to defund Obamacare?)

For every minute you spend attacking Cruz on TV, Republicans, could you consider spending two minutes attacking Obamacare?

Barry Goldwater didn’t “have the votes” when Ronald Reagan launched the conservative movement with his “A Time for Choosing” speech in 1964. But he galvanized conservatives and gave them the hope of future victories. Does Rep. Peter King think Reagan was a fraud who lost influence in the Republican Party with that speech? We don’t have the votes, Ron!

Whether or not Cruz succeeds, we wouldn’t be talking about Obamacare this week without his efforts to defund it — at least those of us who are talking about this disastrous law, rather than attacking Cruz.

Trust But Verify


Ted Cruz: “I Don’t Trust Republicans.”

Stephen King said: “The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.”

We are a world of liars; a Mecca to deceivers; living to eke out inches simply to get ahead. Once there–in a comfortable position–we lie even more, so that we may stay in that position. The reason we have Presidential term limits is because of this very human compulsion to lie. We have term limits because power is a strong tonic that, once taken, invigorates the user, and can compel them to do whatever it takes to stay in power.

Trust is a fool’s gambit. Well, blind trust. Proficient liars—the best of which are in the political world—use blind trust to take advantage of Americans every day. These lies pour from the mouths of Democrats and Republicans like water from the mouth of a river. These lies are never ending. As Reagan said: we must trust, but verify. We must make ourselves good students of character, so that we may see through deception, and find the honest politicians. Difficult as it may be to believe, they do truly exist.

Something I appreciate about Ted Cruz is that he is completely unafraid of offending his own Party. Not only is he articulate, but he stand on his convictions with an unwavering commitment. He gives a killer cross-examination (Dianne Feinstein) and he has a scalpel tongue, slicing apart his opponent’s arguments with surgical precision.

In the vein of offending his own Party, Cruz recently objected to his own Party forming a committee to hash out a budget. According to The Hill:

“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he thought it was ‘bizarre’ that a member of his own party was objecting to forming a conference committee with the House to work out a budget.”

McCain said: “Isn’t it a little bizarre, this whole exercise? What we’re saying is that we don’t trust our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol.”

In response to this, Cruz said:

“The senior senator of Arizona urged senators to trust House Republicans…and frankly, I don’t trust Republicans…It’s the leaders of both parties that got us in this mess…A lot of Republicans were complicit in this spending spree.”

What Cruz said has extraordinary resonance for two reasons. One, he is exactly correct regarding Republicans being complicit in spending us to death. Two, he is unafraid of distancing himself from the Party that could very well have to support him in the 2016 Presidential race.

This lack of fear shows a maturity, and an understanding that doing what’s right isn’t about following Party lines; it’s about the truth; no matter the response. Ted Cruz represents an ideal of the Republican Party; an expectation that is often spoken of, but rarely met. Cruz is a rare brand, and we need to support him with everything we have.

In 2016, the Democrats and many Republicans will try to keep us in the dark; Cruz is the point of light toward which we can walk. Trust, but verify. So far, my trust in Cruz has been validated.


Are You Smarter Than A Sixth Grader?

Dianne Feinstein: Assault Weapons Like Child Pornography

feinstein gunThe Senate Judiciary Committee passed Feinstein’s gun-grabbing bill that bans over 150 different types of guns, but it didn’t pass without a fight from Republicans. Ted Cruz grilled Feinstein on the Constitutionality of her gun ban, reminding her that the same “right of the people” applies equally to the 2nd Amendment as it does to the 1st and 4th Amendments.

He asked her if she thought it within the purview of the federal government to ban certain books because it didn’t like them (in violation of the 1st) or claim that certain citizens are not protected against unlawful searches and seizures (in violation of the 4th). After all, he contended, this is what she and her Democrat team are doing with the 2nd Amendment and semi-automatic weapons. They’ve simply deemed those firearms “assault” weapons and have arbitrarily decided that they are scarier than other guns for the time being, and because of that, they can be legally banned.

But she didn’t want a lecture on the Constitution:

”I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war — and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

She strongly objected to Senator Cruz’s use of the term “prohibited.” She said that nothing’s being prohibited, because there are 2,271 exemptions. She said:

“Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so.”

After she didn’t answer Cruz’s question, he asked it again, to which Feinstein reluctantly responded, “No.” The government does not have the authority to ban certain books, because that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

But then she backpedaled when other Democratic members of the committee chimed in and reminded her of child pornography. She then changed her answer and said that child porn books can be legally banned because they are not protected under the 1st Amendment. So, banning weapons (with “exceptions”) is OK, because they’re not protected under the 2nd Amendment, just like child porn. Therefore, it’s not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

When are they going to say that with regard to handguns and shotguns and knives? Who decides which weapons are not protected by the Bill of Rights? Apparently Dianne Feinstein. And we should trust her to make these arbitrary decisions because she’s “not a sixth grader.” She’s a “reasonably well-educated” person. And yet she still doesn’t get it that banning semi-automatic guns won’t do anything to curb violent crime, but will most likely increase it.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: