Posted on 06/17/2013 12:57:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via the Examiner, a short but noteworthy clip insofar as it exposes a potential fault line between Cruz and Rand Paul. McCain lumps them together as “wacko birds” but I’m not so sure that’s true of Cruz on national-security issues. His alliance with Paul interests me because it strikes me as a personification of the uneasy libertarian/tea-party alliance. The groups overlap heavily on spending issues, and both are deeply suspicious of Obama’s expansion of government. The master stroke of Paul’s drone filibuster was that he found a sweet spot for both, making the philosophical case for due process while humiliating O for having turned into such a hypocrite about it. Even so, no matter how much Paul sometimes likes to pretend that the tea party is synonymous with libertarianism (for his own strategic reasons), various polls show that it just isn’t so. Tea partiers are more socially conservative than doctrinaire libertarians, they’re more likely to support entitlements, and they’re more traditionally Republican on defense/security issues. That’s not to say that they’re not becoming more libertarian — polls lately show Republicans are more skeptical about NSA surveillance than Democrats are, although that’s probably for partisan reasons — but they’re not all Ron Paul fans either. That’s why Rand is usually quick to claim the tea-party label. The more he gets TPers thinking of themselves as allied with him, then theoretically the more receptive they’ll be to his libertarian ideals.
McCain doesn’t seem to understand the difference between them but comparing Paul’s reaction to the NSA revelations to Cruz’s is instructive. Paul’s first instinct was to organize a class-action lawsuit and accuse the NSA of an “extraordinary invasion of [Americans'] privacy.” Cruz, by contrast, says the revelations are “cause for concern” but urges Fox viewers to reserve judgment until we know more about the programs. And from the looks of it here, his chief objection seems to be that this particular administration can’t be trusted with NSA’s surveillance tools in light of the IRS scandal, not necessarily that any administration can’t be trusted with it. He may very well end up joining Paul’s lawsuit, but I suspect that’ll be aimed at impressing libertarians whose votes he’ll need if he ends up running for president someday just as Rand often tempers his own libertarianism in order to impress more mainstream tea-party conservatives. Cruz’s ally, Sarah Palin (who returned to Fox this morning, although she doesn’t speak in this clip) seems to be taking a position similar to his lately. From her speech at the Faith and Freedom Conference on Saturday:
“The scandals infecting this city, they are a symptom of a bigger disease, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican or a Democrat sitting atop a bloated boot on your neck, out of control government, everybody gets infected, no party is immune,” Palin said. “That’s why, I tell you, I’m listening to those independents, those libertarians, who are saying, it is both sides of the aisle, the leadership, the good ol’ boys in the party on both sides of the aisle, they perpetuate the problem.”…
Palin also took on the “pandering, rewarding the rule breakers, still-no-border security, special interest written amnesty bill,” especially ribbing Jeb Bush for his fertility comment yesterday. “I think it’s kind of touchy territory to want to debate this over one race’s fertility over another, and I say that as someone who’s kinda fertile herself.”
Obama didn’t evade Palin’s lashing, either. “Where is our commander in chief?” Palin asked. “We’re talking now more new interventions? I say, until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing—well, chief, in these radical Islamic countries, aren’t even respecting basic human rights, when both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line ‘Allah ak-bar’—I say, let Allah sort it out.”
I suspect Cruz would agree with every word, and that her former running mate would disagree with most or all of it. (Palin advocated “Cruz control” for Washington in the speech, in fact.) She doesn’t want any more interventions under a strategist as poor as Obama — but she’s not against intervention in principle. She wants America to listen more to the libertarians, but when it comes to the lousy Gang of Eight bill, she rightly opposes it for its weak border security — even though libertarians are famously comfortable with weak borders. None of this is contradictory; most tea partiers would, I take it, agree that America needs more libertarianism while maybe not quite so much as Ron Paul supporters would prefer. The point is, though, there are real differences between Cruz and Rand Paul and I think we’re getting a hint of one in the clip. And the longer the national debate stays stuck on liberty-versus-security issues, the more obvious I think those differences will be.
No, I don’t believe we have to be monitored like this. It’s a choice they made for total control. I’m not buying in.
What did they do before electronics? Well, they did without. They can do without again.
In specific instances, I agree with surveillance, but what they’re doing now is wrong.
We can’t go wobbly on this.
In this age the ratio is 100k to 1. They want to keep all
the luxury of modern science and technology. That takes an
extensive work force. It seems more like a move to
Aldous Huxley “Brave New World”. Absolute, from test tube
to recycle plant, control of human life. With all the sex
and drugs the proletariat wants to keep them calm and
productive. You have more extensive knowledge of this
than I do. I’m just going on what little I know and what
I see today. Given the past record of communism, massive
starvation and genocide, there is little value in human
life other than social slavery. In America social slavery
is a progressive income tax. Forced to give 1/3 or more of
your fruits of hard labor to the government at the point of
a gun. When 100% isn’t enough they turn to full slavery.
The term “Backed by the full faith and credit of the United States” means or governments ability to tax it’s
citizens directly. That’s what backs our dollar. Our
governments ability to confiscate the collective and even
individual wealth of it’s citizens at any time. In other
words you own nothing not even yourself. All is property
of the state.
I fear that’s where we are now and were only one mass
genocide away from Dr. Eric R. Pianka utopia.
Last night, Trey Gowdy sounded like he had been lobotomized. He said that Congress is powerless and has no power of prosecution. He said the public needs to pressure the white hut and DOJ to do something because congress can’t. What?
I saw that and my mouth dropped. He said something about cutting off funding. We really are in a coup d’état.
What’s to stop them from continuing all their treachery against us? I see nothing. They can pick off/attack conservatives a few at a time.
Now is a good time for the Republicans to play some serious politics. Stop defending the NSA spying. This spying is finally waking up the younthful dudderhead tech immersed idealistic youth.
Play it up!
Honestly, I am very concerned with the NSA spying. The left has always shown a willingness to use data against their friends and enemies. Remember Hillary and the missing FBI files?
Don’t think so; Not Cruz’s style. I think he’s just being coy.
A little child porn here, a little gay bathhouse visit there, a few nude tweets to someone over there. We are toast.
“So let me ask a question. If Cruz is a “Republican in name only” (i.e. a false or fake Republican), what current Republican do you believe is NOT a RINO?”
Good point. Just a little out of context though.
Any non conservative republican like Bush for example.
I think the term is “big government republican”. Today
republican is democrat lite. Cruz is a conservative in
the only party he could run in and win.
A conservative democrat would be a DINO if they even
exist.
I’m assuming your point is, conservatism is Republican. In
general it should be but it’s not. Too many republicans
today are willing to cross the aisle and compromise with
a party that wants to destroy everything this country was
founded on. Listen to Rush, he explains it better than I
can. The republican party must be infiltrated and taken
over by the conservatives. Like the commies did with the
democrat party. Until the republican party becomes
conservative then yes Cruz is a RINO because he is a
conservative.
It all come down to what the definition of republican is
today and what it should be. Spinelessness as opposed to
statesmanship based on morals and principals laid down
by our founding fathers.
[[I’ll trust Cruz,]]
Even if Cruz is cautioning to not rush to judgement- he is STILL miles ahead of ANY other GOP or liberal morally, ethically, and in the department of decency- So far he has given me no pause nor caused any red flags- There are some on FR though that will take ANY ‘offense’ no matter how minor, and will use it to throw their hands up in defeat and declare they are not voting because the candidate ‘doesn’t meet their requirement’ (which just means they are givign the opposition one more vote to win by) Their mentality seems to be that because a candidate isn’t 100% perfect- or close to 100%, then America deserves to have a liberal in office because the conservative movement ‘has strayed off course’ (apparently ‘kin the old days’ all conservatives were 100% perfect- Gee- wish I coulda lived back then)- they woudl rather see America suffer the massive assaults to our liberties that we’ve had to suffer under dear leader, than to vote for a less than 100% perfect candidate
All it will take to cause these folsk to turn off to Ted woudl be for Ted to say ‘let’s not rush to judgement just yet’- not even taking into aCCOUNT he may have a very good conservative driven reason for doign so-
“Too many Godfather movies.”
I know. Funny how this administration is pitting brother
against brother with suspicion. Honestly I don’t think
hes compromised but it was my first thought.
What did they do before electronics?
...they didn’t connect the dots...then 9/11 happened...technology provided the means to connect the dots.
Now the people don’t want them connected if it means they loose their privacy....catch 22.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I had no point. I was simply asking a question. I still didn’t get a name though. Who among Republicans in office today do you believe fits your requirement of what a Republican “should be”?
You honestly think they weren’t doing this back then?
I’ll bet they were.
Back then they also had intel that should have alerted them to a serious problem, but they ignored it.
We were too busy trying not to be racist. We’re doing the same thing today.
Also, Ronald Reagan compromised also. Several tax increases were signed into law by Reagan for instance. Reagan also signed the Brady Bill. Does this make Reagan a RINO? Or make him not what a Republican “should be”?
Press Release of Senator Cruz - Sen. Cruz Statement on NSA Phone Surveillance
But on one hand the Obama Administration says this enemy is in retreat, yet on the other, they are implementing what appears to be an unprecedented and intrusive surveillance system on private American citizens in the name of guarding against that enemy. Just today, the president encouraged us to trust him on this – to trust that there are safeguards to ensure our privacy is protected, trust that there is a system of checks and balances to prevent an abuse of power. But in light of this Administration's track record, how can they expect to be trusted?Sheeeh! What is it with supposedly like-minded people who take one little comment and make a false doctrine out of it?We have discovered over the past few months an ongoing pattern of wanton disregard not only for Americans' privacy, but for the truth – DOJ's refusal to be forthcoming about drone policy, IRS's targeting groups for their political beliefs and then misleading the American people about it, DOJ's targeting of journalists for doing their jobs, and now what seems an unprecedented intrusion into Americans' personal phone records and potentially into their broader online activities.
Americans trusted President Obama when he came to office promising the most transparent administration in history. But that trust has been broken and the only way to earn it back is to tell the truth. That's what Americans deserve. I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate who share my concerns to ensure that we have all the facts about these surveillance programs, and that our government is appropriately balancing concerns of national security with Americans' personal liberties.
I don't see anywhere in that press release where Cruz comes out and says the programs were wrong and that the intrusion into people's privacy was wrong. He just said Obama is misusing the authority granted him under the law. Well if the powers are such that the legislation allows them to be misused by one administration then what's to stop them from being abused by a future one? You can't pick and choose which laws apply to which administration. Long and short of it is that if these powers are open to abuse by one president then they shouldn't be allowed to any president.
Is he wrong?
No, he’s right. This is beyond frustrating.
I underlined it.
What does "wanton disregard" mean? Good? OK? Necessary?
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.