Posted on 03/05/2016 7:12:59 AM PST by bray
In all the years I have been reading and liking your stuff, this is the best ever. Besides agreeing with you on substance, the writing is superb. Great analogies and insights. Thanks, bray.
Thank you so much for writing this!
Trump has given the voters a voice. The RNC would never have given us such a voice. The RNC wants voters to shut up and pull the lever for RNC’s loser choice.
Does Hillary have them all by the short hairs? I’m beginning to think so.
RIGHT ON
All of Brays rants start with that, whether they are about Trump or not.
It’s easy to just skip that part if it offends you.
But I doubt you would have liked the rest of it anyway, since it isn’t about Pastor Ted
I think you have a reasonable view on where Cruz stands. The only way to dissolve the DC cabal is to have an outsider with cahone’s get in there and start dismantling it a piece at a time.
Trump could very well be that guy.
So true and all of these Conservative purists are afraid to get their lily white gloves dirty.
Trump always reminds me of Dangerfield in the Country Club of Caddie Shack. “Give me a couple dozen of those naked lady tees for my friend Wang!”
Somebody told me I should vote Cruz because he has the best brains of the bunch.
If terrorists were throwing brains instead of bombs, maybe I would.
WHO IS THE REAL TED CRUZ?
By Roger Stone
Vladimir Lenin said, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
I can’t think of a better description of Ted Cruz’s relationship with the DC-Wall Street Establishment – Cruz being the scoundrel of course. Cruz’s claim of not being a tool of the political elite is like Bill Clinton telling the world, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Webster’s definition of a scoundrel is a dishonest or unscrupulous person, and Cruz has become quite adroit at saying one thing while his history shows him doing the other. Rather than the outsider he claims to be, Ted Cruz is the ultimate insider, former top Bush 41 policy aide and globalist, Ivy Leaguer, and establishment insider.
Not many conservatives coming out of Princeton and Harvard. “I’m just sayin,’” Ted, as said in the debate.
There is no better example of this than Calgary Ted’s actions surrounding the big Wall Street banks and their secret funding of his political ascension. Cruz has been gorging at the table of the ultimate insider of all insiders – Goldman Sachs and Citibank.
You may recall in a recent Fox Business Network debate that Cruz, in Mr. Haney from Green Acres voice, declared to one of the moderators, “The opening question [moderator Jerry Seib] asked — would you bailout the big banks again — nobody gave you an answer to that. I will give you an answer — absolutely not.”
What else would you expect a scoundrel to say who had secretly secured big sweetheart loans from Goldman and Citibank — by leveraging his retirement accounts –– to fund his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign. Loans which the Calgary Ted conveniently forgot to disclose to the Federal Election Commission. These are the very retirement accounts that he said he and his wife said he cashed in to fund his senate race. In other words, Ted lied.
At the same time Ted’s bulging 2016 campaign accounts and supporting Super-PACs are stuffed with big oil and gas money. He knows how to play the game.
And perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy of the native born Canadian is that his spouse, Heidi, by all accounts a lovely wife and mother, has been employed by Goldman Sachs since 2005. She is on leave as managing director and regional head of private wealth management. Heidi is a proud member of the lefty Council on Foreign Relations, advocates of one world government and the New World Order.
Heidi is not a bit player in the Cruz campaign with those credentials but rather an integral part of the campaign’s fundraising efforts. As reported by CNN last year, “She works the phones the way she worked them when she was at Goldman,” said Chad Sweet, the Cruz campaign’s chairman, who recruited Heidi to work at the giant investment bank.”
Yet we are to believe that the big Wall Street banks have no leverage over Ted Cruz? Why didn’t Heidi Cruz resign from Goldman Sachs instead of taking a leave of absence? That’s like saying Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky have had no influence on Barack Obama.
The other inside connection that hits one like a baseball bat is the Bush connection. Ted was George W.’s brain when he ran for President. A top policy adviser. Ted maneuvered for Solicitor General in Bush World but settled for a plum at the Federal Trade Commission. Ted’s a Bushman with deep ties to the political and financial establishment.
Ted and Heidi brag about being the first “Bush marriage” – they met as Bush staffers which ultimately led to marriage. Cruz was an adviser on legal affairs while Heidi was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice. Condi helped give us the phony war in Iraq.
Also conveniently missing from Heidi’s Wikipedia bio is her service as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative to USTR head Robert Zoellick. At USTR Heidi worked on U.S.-China trade policy- the one Donald Trump talks about so much.
And Chad Sweet, Ted Cruz’s campaign chairman, is a former CIA officer. Michael Chertoff, George W. Bush’s former Secretary of Homeland Security, hired Sweet from Goldman Sachs to restructure and optimize the flow of information between the CIA, FBI and other members of the national security community and DHS. Chertoff and Sweet co-founded the Chertoff Group upon leaving the administration.
A known tactic of the intelligence community is the use of strategic communications as a “soft power” weapon against it adversaries — the creation of false narratives by the effective use of all media — social, digital, newspaper, print, etc. Combined with denial and deception, it can be a potent force. Glenn Beck and Mark Levin are abetting this.
Despite his ability to lie with a straight face (sadly Nixonian) on his support for amnesty and TPP, he got nailed by Senator Marco Rubio on the debate. Acting like a prick in the U.S. Senate was the core of Ted’s disciplined effort to bury his old school ties and reinvent himself as a modern-day Jesse Helms and supposed Conservative outsider. It’s a ruse.
As we get closer to the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, Cruz and his establishment puppet masters are engaged in an aggressive strategy against Trump. The false narrative of course being that Cruz is the outsider while Trump is the insider. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In its most simplistic terms – the power elite have no leverage over Trump – nothing. Cruz, on the other hand, is the establishments quisling, spawned by the Bushes and controlled by Wall Street, who became a strident “outsider” only four years ago.
The U.S. Constitution does not defined “native born” citizen, nor have the courts. That Ted was eligible to run for office as a citizen only 15 months ago is weird. Trump’s right the Democrats would have a field day with Calgary Ted, the Manchurian, Canadian Candidate.
Don’t get me wrong. Ted Cruz is a smart, canny, talented guy who has run a great “long race” campaign. He aspires to be Reagan but trust me he’s Nixon. Right down the incredible discipline and smarts playing the political game. Ted Cruz is not who he appears to be. As the bible says, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” In this case we must beware a Canadian bearing gifts.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/26/who-is-the-real-ted-cruz/
So you’re saying that not reading it was a blessing. I can see that.
Actually, you had to be conservative at the time of your conception with totally conservative parents.
Afterwards, while in our mothers’s wombs, our mothers read Wm Buckley and NR readings to us.
That’s a great example of yellow journalism. But, you’re going to believe what you’re going to believe. Even scurrilous, fact-less stuff like that.
I do wonder if your belief system is more based on supporting the notoriously thin-skinned and unfit Trump, or if you just dislike conservatives in general. One of those questions that can never be answered.
Well stated arguments. I have been 1.Cruz 2.Trump for quite a while, but am now leaning to 1.Trump 2.Cruz for my preference. The all-out GOPe assault on Trump has only increased my admiration for him. He has withstood these assaults — mostly frivolous — with aplomb and tenacity. The points raised against Trump seem to me to be silly: nothing substantive, merely talking-points. My wife feels the same I do. So do many of our friends.
It is rare we get to vote for someone who is not an integral part of the Washington establishment network.
Used to scare my parents that I was watching Firing Line at age 9. Some of us are born with it.
Turns out it takes more than three conservatives in the senate to accomplish much. Your guy will probably win and will do it easily without my support. Maybe our anti-constitutionalist president will be better than their anti-constitutionalist president. I’m a strict-constructionist through and through. Lost cause? Maybe. But that’s the hill I’m willing to die on.
I laughed out loud when I heard Cruz bring this up at the debate. But then I wondered how he could have said it with a straight face.
He donated to Cruz also.
With all due respect, the problem is far less debates and much more it is “debates” which are actually joint news conferences.The “debates” position the shows’ moderators as the authorities and the candidates as game-show contestants. Journalists are professional criticizers, which is to say cynics - and that is the defining characteristic of the socialist. Naturally “debates” which are actually game shows conducted by opponents of conservative candidates are farces.
True debates, which actually would inform the audience on substantive matters, would IMHO favor the most conservative mandate over any of the others. But true debates are, for that reason among others, anathema to journalists. And IMHO actual debates would be not be desired by Donald Trump precisely because he does well in reality TV game shows.
Cruz is no outsider. Read his and his wife’s resumes. Perhaps nobody in the Senate likes him because he is an unlikeable fellow? I do not claim to know that but it is a possibility.
Let’s all punish Cruz for leading the conservative charge in the Senate and get behind an untested loudmouth who has financed our enemies for years.
........................................................
WHAT “Conservative Charge?” Seems all they’ve done is sign, seal, and deliver Obama’s wish list!
An “untested loudmouth” who already knows most of the rulers of the world? That untested loudmouth is a PROVEN winner. He is also above all an Unequivocal AMERICAN. Something sadly lacking in Washington today.
You snarks always talk about the financing of our enemies, but conveniently omit to say he has financed our “supposed friends” to an even greater amount. Of course those supposed friends turned out to be turncoats like Romney, McCain, and the rest of the bag of worms who are busy eating away our freedoms.
I’ll take my chances on a loudmouth over a sniveling wimp.
But, bloviating at a podium in front of an empty Senate chamber really is not accomplishing anything.
I am not retired, but when I worked I was evaluated and rewarded on accomplishment, and not on empty words.
Accomplishments can be built upon and thereby improved. Being strictly rigid doesn't accomplish much.
Ever notice how in a strong wind the rigid, strong tree breaks or is blown over, while the flexible blade of grass may be bent and blown every which way is still standing after the storm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.