Posted on 12/12/2015 5:19:32 AM PST by Michael van der Galien
Yesterday we reported that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seemed to be preparing to go to war with each other. A few hours later, however, Cruz himself responded on Twitter by saying that, although the media would love to see a cage match between himself and the billionaire businessman, he won't play along.
That could -- and by all means should -- have been the end of it.
Sadly it is not. Trump can also read polls and understands that Cruz poses a serious threat to him in Iowa. And so the cage match has started, whether Cruz likes it or not:
"The New Yorker spent more time on Friday poking Cruz for opposing ethanol subsidies, which are widely popular there. Independent groups there are beginning to spend money against Cruz for his position, which Trump told a questioner was "anti-Iowa." Cruz says the subsidies are an example of government interference in the free market."
The Donald literally said:
"With the ethanol, really, he's got to come a long way, 'cause right now he's for the oil. But I understand it, oil pays him a lot of money. He's got to be for oil, right? But I'm with you. I'm self-funding. I have no oil company. I have no special interest."
Of course The Donald is a special interest, but it would be rather inconvenient for him to point that out. And so he's playing self-funding card once again, hoping it'll give him the edge, while defending crony capitalism.
Trump apparently thinks that he can win Iowa by defending ethanol subsidies. This is what he does: he tries to buy people's votes. The difference with Cruz is stark: the senator from Texas chooses principles over short-term political gain.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
You’re no doctor, you’re a fraud.
That was a word salad on at least two levels.
So you’re a cartoon reader? That explains your childish views. I grew up a long time ago. What’s your excuse?
‘I’m astounded that all the Cruz supporters here think NRO and National Journal and Jim Geraghty and Charles Cooke and Jonah Goldberg and Guy Benson all really think Cruz is “coming on” and are being supportive of him because they LIKE him.
These people hate Cruz, and the second they think they have Trump derailed, you’ll see a crap-storm of bad press on Cruz that will make your head spin.’
So true. And not a single Cruz supporter seems to notice how many hard left publications have been writing warm fuzzy articles on Cruz. If half of those leftist diehards had one good word to say about Trump, I’d be concerned.
Here is one point you might find interesting. I came upon the fact that Rafael Cruz the elder, while officially speaking for Ted’s Senate bid, explained that Ted is an “anointed king” whose role is to redistribute the spoils. An odd characterization at best.
Wishing to figure out what this means, I plugged the key words into a search engine.
Good googly moogly. What popped up was a Who’s Who of major, famous, rabidly leftist sites. They were ALL listed.
But not one conservative site. Not one.
The progressives were having a field day, mocking the Cruzes and brutally savaging the ‘anointed king’ meme. On the conservative side, explaining or justifying the concept...crickets.
Cruz supporters imagine if they ignore such issues, and intimidate their fellow conservatives into silence, the problem will go away. They’ll never have to deal with it.
As you so aptly forecast, if Cruz ever tops the GOP field, the leftist attacks will surpass anything seen to date. The libs are locked, loaded and salivating. All the need now is for the target to come into range, and BLAM!
When I grew up I gave up the more vulgar aspects of New York street parlance.
Honestly, I think you have to interpret Rafael’s phrase in the religious, not political context. A part of evangelical Christianity holds that “the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteous” and that all believers are “kings” (hence Jesus us King of kings). So those comments don’t bother me and I really don’t think they were uttered in God political context.
The quote does not emanate from "the internet."
Norman Vincent Peale said, plainly and unequivocally to a national television audience, that it was not necessary to be born again.
That was 18 years after Billy Graham - a man who supported the Clintons, and who endorsed the Communist-run state churches of Red China - made that fawning statement.
President Reagan's awarding him the MOF is evidence of exactly nothing: Reagan gave an MOF to Sidney Hook as well, who was not a believer of any kind.
‘A part of evangelical Christianity holds that “the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteous†and that all believers are “kings‒
I’ve been an evangelical for decades, and I’ve never heard anything like this being taught.
Well, it is. Maybe you should get out more? :)
What is the NT reference for, “the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteousâ€?
Where in the NT does the Scripture teach that all believers are “kings�
Ok, I don’t wNt to get into a religious debate. I was just telling you that this is not as outside the mainstream of evangelical thought.
Sounds like a great plan to me! :-)
‘I was just telling you that this is not as outside the mainstream of evangelical thought.’
It is completely outside mainstream evangelical thought bc it is contrary to God’s Word. The NT calls Jesus our “only Sovereign” in the same context that it calls Him our “only Lord.” It NEVER refers to rank and file believers as kings. [The same passage that calls Jesus King of kings calls Him Lord of lords. We are not all lords either; there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism.]
Even more doctrinally perverted is the suggestion that the righteous will in some/any way possess the wealth of the wicked. That sounds like a Biblical quote but it’s antipodal to NT teaching. Christians have one, and only one, concern for the wicked: to win them for Christ. Their wealth is none of our business. We are not promised it, nor would God suggest such a thing. He commands us NOT to lay up wealth here, but to accumulate our treasure in heaven. The wealth of the wicked will not, I assure you, comprise a heavenly treasure.
These two teachings could scarcely be less Biblical. They are anything but mainstream evangelical. They run contrary to every sound doctrine. Whoever believes them has gone seriously astray.
One final thought. The Apostle Paul said he had become all things to all men (people) so that by any means he might save some.
Why would Paul want to save sinners, if he was anticipating the possession of their wealth, should they remain in their sins? God doesn’t assign us a task, and then reward us if we fail. Nor does God ask us to serve two masters: Himself, and money. We are to serve God only, concern ourselves with saving the lost, and give no thought to possessions that do not belong to us.
You can take Trump out of the Democrat Party, but you can't take the Democrat out of Trump.
I am not aware of Cruz supporting oil subsidies. But yes, all subsidies are bad. Including the ones that subsidize unemployment.
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.