Hat Tip: BB
By: Alan Caruba
Would you vote for a man who openly says he would repeal ObamaCare?
Would you vote for a man who openly says he favors a fair tax and wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service?
Would you vote for a man who opposes Obama’s efforts to offer illegal aliens amnesty and promises to secure the borders?
Would you vote for a man who decries a federal government “that wages an assault on our religious liberty”?
Would you vote for a man who wants a federal government that “works to defend the sanctity of human life” and would “uphold the sacrament of marriage”?
Would you vote for a man who defends our Second Amendment rights and condemns the effort ban ammunition?
Would you vote for a man who condemns a federal government that seeks to dictate school curriculums and wants to repeal “every word of Common Core”?
Would you vote for a man who would stand “unapologetically with the nation of Israel”?
Would you vote for a man who has pledged that he would do everything he could to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon?
Would you vote for a man who openly says he would do everything he could to defeat radical Islamic terrorism?
I said I would on May 6, 2013 when he was beginning to get attention. Columnist George Will said he was “as good as it gets” when it comes to being a true conservative in Congress.
I am of course speaking of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who has announced his candidacy to be the presidential candidate of the Republican Party.
I suspect that his announcement probably terrifies the Republican “Establishment” who have managed to serve up some good men, but poor candidates, to be President. When Republican voters stayed home, we got Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Now they want to get the Party faithful to vote for Jeb Bush, but from my vantage point, the real base is ready to vote for anybody else, Sen. Cruz, Wisconsin Gov. Walker, and Sen. Rubio come to mind.
First of all, there is no Tea Party in the sense of a political party with its own candidates. What there is are Republicans who believe in the U.S. Constitution, small government, fiscal prudence, strong national security, and all those other values outlined in Ted Cruz’s speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
As Cruz said in an email about his announcement “Washington, D.C. has become completely disconnected from the values of real Americans. That’s why we are now more than $18 trillion in debt, why wages have stagnated, and why our foreign policy is an absolute mess.” That pretty much sums up what Obama has delivered.
Does it surprise anyone that Cruz’s candidacy was instantly attacked, not just by Democrats, but by a number of leading Republicans? Rep. Peter King, appearing on CNN’s “Situation Room” with host Wolf Blitzer, said, he’d “jump off that bridge” when he got to it if Cruz becomes the GOP candidate. He also accused Cruz and Rand Paul of being “counterfeit conservatives.” Nonsense!
The March 24 Wall Street Journal had a lengthy editorial devoted to “The Cruz Candidacy” noting that on most issues with the exception of immigration they found themselves in agreement with him and offered an upbeat view that “The good news for GOP voters is that their field of candidates in 2016 is going to be deep, offering many varieties of conservative leadership” but ending with reservations about “his polarizing style” which was another way of saying he is not a wishy-washy centrist.
We will hear more such accusations and criticisms and, as often as not, they will come from the GOP Establishment.
The GOP Establishment regards real conservatives as unable to secure election, preferring RINOs, Republicans in Name Only, and candidates who move as close to the center politically as possible. It seems to have escaped their notice that the Republicans elected in the last two midterm elections were sent to Washington, D.C. by Tea Party and other serious conservative voters.
It has been a long time since a real conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan, was elected President, but it can happen again as serious voters, particularly those who are independents, join with those who find Sen. Cruz a refreshing voice, Will he get the nomination? We are a very long way from the 2016 election, but at least we know it won’t be a boring one!
© Alan Caruba, 2015
By: Benjamin Weingarten
With the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination officially under way, I thought it apt to share a set of questions on foreign policy — an area in which it is vital that each candidate distinguish himself given the size and scope of the threats we face.
Below are 20 questions the next commander-in-chief will likely be grappling with, and should be able to answer cogently, consistently and comprehensively.
The responses to these queries would serve to elucidate the first principles of each of the potential nominees, and create a clear contrast in terms of their goals, strategies and tactics with respect to protecting and furthering America’s interests both at home and abroad.
1) Define your general foreign policy doctrine, and explain how it will differ from that of President George W. Bush.
2) How should America respond to the metastasization of Sunni and Shiite jihadists in the Middle East?
3) What do you believe would be the consequences of a hegemonic Iran in the region, and what steps might you take to counter her?
4) In the event of a nuclear arms race triggered by Iran, what if anything would you do as president?
5) Will you stand in the way if Israel acts unilaterally to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?
6) What is in America’s national interest with respect to Syria, and how do you intend to achieve it?
7) Do you believe it a sound policy to arm Muslim groups in the Middle East given the historically negative consequences for the West?
8) What is/are the key lesson(s) of the Iraq War?
9) What is/are the key lesson(s) of Libya?
10) Do you believe the Muslim Brotherhood and its violent and non-violent proxies both in the Middle East and the West pose a direct threat to the United States and her interests, and how will you counter the group’s growing influence?
11) What do you believe Vladimir Putin ultimately wants to achieve, and how do you intend to counter him?
12) Will you install a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe?
13) Do you view Russia as a partner against jihadism, an opportunist playing both sides against the middle, or something else?
14) In a Western Europe seeing a dramatic increase in its jihadist population – which is being countered by the rise of anti-Islamization groups, many of which are favorably disposed to Russia — how should America respond?
15) Should Europe be required to fund NATO to a much more significant degree?
17) Is China an ally or an enemy, and do you believe she seeks peaceful co-existence with the US ultimately?
18) What measures would you take, if any, to counter China’s increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea, and stealing of intellectual property, among other actions against America and her allies?
19) Does the United States have a national security interest in undermining Communist nations such as China, Cuba and North Korea or should we take a live-and-let-live approach?
20) Should the United States withdraw troops from South Korea, Western Europe or any other nation/region?
Feature Image: AP Photo/The Elkhart Truth, Jon Garcia
By: Trevor Loudon
American Putinistas and other fools please take note.
From a friend in Moscow.
According to a poll conducted by the most popular pro-democratic radio/Internet-resource in Russia, the majority would like to have Ted Cruz as Russia’s head of state (no fake, no joke):
Ted Cruz has the “inspiration factor.” We haven’t seen that since Reagan. Russian freedom lovers loved Reagan too.
By: Trevor Loudon
A delegation from the Communist Party USA, led by new National Secretary John Bachtell, recently visited Cuba. On Feb. 27th, the delegation stopped by the the Cuban Intelligence connected Cuban Institute for Friendship with the Peoples to “discuss building friendship, cooperation and people to people exchanges in light of the Dec. 17 announcement to reestablish diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba.”
Among those who warmly greeted the delegates were Fernando Gonzalez, one of the infamous “Cuban 5” who was jailed in the U.S. in 1998 as part of a “mission to monitor right-wing Cuban terrorist activities in Miami being directed against Cuba.” Several people died as a result of Gonzalez’s espionage.
According to Bachtell:
We found Gonzalez warm, gracious and eager to speak about exploring ways to build friendship with the U.S. people. He also shared stories about his time in U.S. prisons, the people he met and the extraordinary solidarity he and the Cuban 5 received over the years.”
The most important thing to say, to express on my behalf, my family and relatives, is my deep gratitude to the CPUSA because of the years of participation in the struggle, the solidarity you accorded us during the time we were in prison and for our liberation.
You were side by side with us. Even when things look dark, there’s always a bright side. No one wants that experience (of imprisonment). It gave us the chance to experience the best of the U.S. people and those we worked with for many years, side by side in that fight.
Gonzalez made it clear that the Castro regime made no concessions in return for Communist Party connected President Barack Obama‘s diplomatic recognition of the dictatorship.
During the second round of negotiations between the U.S. and Cuba we haven’t made any concessions. And with the return of all the Cuban Five it was a great victory for the Cuban people and all friends in the U.S. who have participated in struggle and for friendship between our countries.
Diplomatic recognition of Cuba is a “win win” for Marxists, both in Washington DC and Havana.
Soon Obama “crony capitalists” will be able to export more American jobs to Cuban sweatshops, while Cuban communists can more easily export spies, revolutionaries and drugs to the United States.
Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week’s nominees were all truly slime-worthy and disgusting, but in the end the unanimous winner was… the envelope please…
White House Chief Of Staff And Israel Basher Denis McDonough!
JoshuaPundit: Well, yah gets yer orders and yah follows ‘em, but even cops and football players say ‘no’ sometimes. But not at the Obama White House, nossir!
McDonough’s orders were to front for the president and amplify his childish tantrum after all those millions of dollars and ACORN-style campaigning complete with Chicago-style vote buying by his favorite operatives wasn’t enough to defeat Benyamin Netanyahu in the Israeli elections.
Obama and his friends even tried to pull the race card on Bibi because he had the temerity to tell the Israeli public what was going on, that Arab voters known to belong to factions hostile to Israel (the Parties on the so-called Arab List) were being bussed in to vote Labor for lunch and a hundred shekels funded by foreign sources.
And to be realistic about saying that there was no possibility now of a two-state solution with Abbas’s rejectionism and Fatah’s alliance with Hamas in the mix.
So what was McDonough’s assignment? To be President Obama’s surrogate at the far left group J-Street’s national conference and bash Israel as part of Obama’s amen chorus, McDonough followed through like a real champ, denouncing Netanyahu, what he called ‘Israel’s 50-year occupation’ and pimped for that mythical two state solution along the indefensible pre-67 lines, including dividing Jerusalem.
And he also did a fair amount of pimping for the president’s non-existent, non-binding super dooper Iran Nukes deal and of course spent some time bashing Republicans. It all got a big standing O from the Jay Streeters, After all, why wouldn’t they? The group was formed and funded by Obama and George Soros to provide cover for the Regime’s anti-Israel stance.
I really don’t mind folks like McDonough or even our president spouting this bilge. What annoys me most is when they try to insist they’re ‘pro-Israel’ and that ‘they’re only interested in Israel ‘s security,’ that making a nukes deal with people like the Iranians is anything but appeasement and an invitation to another Holocaust.
That’s where the weaselness comes in, the outright lies and pretending. Anyone with any common sense knows that they know they’re lying. McDonough wasn’t alone, but he did his bit for the Regime this week, and I think he ought to be commended for it.
As I’ve said before, this award condemns weaselness. Denis McDonough started on his path to this award many years ago.
He came to public life as an adviser to the far Left senator and tax cheat Tom Daschele, who was, shall we say, not exactly pro-Israel. Understandable of course since Daschele himself was a protege’ of vociferously anti-Israel Senator James Abourezk. Afterwards, Daschele went to work for the radical Left wing Soros funded think tank, The Center For American Progress. Daschele hired McDonough at the CAP as a ‘senior fellow.’
McDonough actually became involved as part of Obama’s minions as a senior foreign policy adviser during the Bamster’s first term, so obviously his views and those of the president really jibed on Israel. His promotion to White House Chief of Staff isn’t exactly a foreign policy post, but no doubt McDonough was happy to help bash Israel for his boss.
Again, the weaselness comes not from whatever he believes, but from the deliberate lies, the repetition of things he has to know are untrue. And his avid willingness to do so.
Here’s your weasel, sir. Oh, the engraving on the Weasel? That’s Hebrew and we had it done especially for you. אידיוט is a well known Hebrew phrase of endearment and respect, they tell me…
Well, there it is!
Check back next Tuesday to see who next week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week are!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.