Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

FLORIDA GOV. RON DESANTIS' OUTSTANDING SPEECH AT CPAC 2022

Outstanding speech well delivered!  Absent Trump, he is far and away the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican Presidential nomination.

"VERDICT WITH TED CRUZ" - ERIC METAXAS INTERVIEWS SEN. TED CRUZ & MICHAEL KNOWLES

I found this interview vastly entertaining.  It's a great introduction to the Cruz/Knowles podcast.  It lasts only 17 minutes.    

"Verdict with Ted Cruz" on YouTube

MIKE POMPEO NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED AS SECRETARY OF STATE

Update:  4/26/18 -The Senate voted today to confirm CIA Director Mike Pompeo as secretary of state in a bipartisan 57-42 vote. 

(Original post):  Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council lays out the case for Pompeo's confirmation:

It would be difficult not to be impressed with a man who graduated at the top of his class at West Point, earned a degree from Harvard Law, built a successful business career, served his country -- and Congress. Even the most relentless of Democrats would have a tough time poking holes in a résumé like that. But on Thursday, when Mike Pompeo sits before the Senate and defends his qualifications to be the next Secretary of State, liberals will still try.

Of course, the Democrats' problem with Pompeo isn't his credentials -- it's his convictions. From his early days in the House to his job at the CIA, Mike's opponents know that he's never been easily intimidated. When it comes to protecting America's interests or the values he cares about, Pompeo -- like the president -- is fearless. He stands up for what's right, regardless which way the political winds are blowing. And Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), for one, thinks that's exactly what our nation needs. "...Director Pompeo is clear-eyed and hard-nosed about the threats we face, and he speaks in the direct, blunt manner of a man who has no time to waste when confronting those threats," he said.

TRUMP'S CABINET AS VIEWED BY "THE NEW YORK TIMES"

The New York Times offers its thumbnail sketches of Trump's new cabinet under the title "Outsiders Selected by Trump Aim to Unnerve Washington."

Seven men and one woman named by Mr. Trump to run vast government agencies share a common trait: once they are confirmed, their presence is meant to unnerve — and maybe even outright undermine — the bureaucracies they are about to lead.

Some of those chosen — 17 picks so far for federal agencies and five for the White House — are among the most radical selections in recent history. Other presidents’ nominees, even when controversial, were often veterans of the Washington bureaucracy and generally believed in it. But a number of Mr. Trump’s most important selections have no experience in federal government and a great drive to undo it.  [more...]

Let us hope so!  Government by the Administrative State - the bureaucracy - has led to tyranny.  It is time to roll the bureaucracy back to manageable levels where we the people, through our elected representatives, become responsible for the laws and regulations under which we choose to live. 

Here is the Times' reporting on Trump's selection of David Friedman to be the U.S. Ambassador to Israel:

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Thursday named David M. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer aligned with the Israeli far right, as his nominee for ambassador to Israel, elevating a campaign adviser who has questioned the need for a two-state solution and has likened left-leaning Jews in America to the Jews who aided the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Mr. Friedman, whose outspoken views stand in stark contrast to decades of American policy toward Israel, did not wait long on Thursday to signal his intention to upend the American approach. In a statement from the Trump transition team announcing his nomination, he said he looked forward to doing the job “from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”  [more. . .] 

Seems a really gutsy choice to me!

THE LEFTIST ATTACK ON CONSERVATIVE VALUES DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Rod Dreher reports:

Sean Trende, on what the left has done over the last four years to attack and provoke religious conservatives:

Democrats and liberals have: booed the inclusion of God in their platform at the 2012 convention (this is disputed, but it is the perception); endorsed a regulation that would allow transgendered students to use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their identity; attempted to force small businesses to cover drugs they believe induce abortions; attempted to force nuns to provide contraceptive coverage; forced Brendan Eich to step down as chief executive officer of Mozilla due to his opposition to marriage equality; fined a small Christian bakery over $140,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; vigorously opposed a law in Indiana that would provide protections against similar regulations – despite having overwhelmingly supported similar laws when they protected Native American religious rights – and then scoured the Indiana countryside trying to find a business that would be affected by the law before settling upon a small pizza place in the middle of nowhere and harassing the owners. In 2015, the United States solicitor general suggested that churches might lose their tax exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages. In 2016, the Democratic nominee endorsed repealing the Hyde Amendment, thereby endorsing federal funding for elective abortions.

DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORMS COMPARED (VIDEO)

From FRC Action:

While the media largely ignores the party platforms after the political conventions, they should play a major role in every voters' decision-making for 2016. Apart from outlining the core beliefs and philosophies of the two parties, these documents are -- at their core -- the party's contracts with voters for how both sides will govern if elected. In many ways, these documents are just as important -- if not more so -- in guiding the politics of both parties as the candidates themselves.

REPUBLICANS MORE TOLERANT THAN DEMOCRATS (SEE VIDEO BELOW)

From NRO:

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz conducted an interesting experiment at the Republican National Convention this year. He stood outside the convention area holding an “I Love Hillary” sign to see what would happen. People were a little amused but surprisingly nice to a guy who seemed to be in the wrong place. 

When he tried the same experiment at the Democratic National Convention, people weren’t so friendly. Horowitz hit up Philadelphia and stood outside holding an “I Love Trump” sign. The responses were less than kind and it wasn’t long before he was spit up on and called a racist, surrounded by a bullying group of haters. 

Watch the video yourself and see which convention you’d prefer to hang out at: 

 

INTRIGUING INTERVIEW WITH JAMES ROSEBUSH, AUTHOR OF "TRUE REAGAN: WHAT MADE RONALD REAGAN GREAT AND WHY IT MATTERS"

If you can spare 30 minutes, you will find Jay Nordlinger's interview podcast with James Rosebush, chief of staff to Nancy Reagan and senior advisor to President Reagan, very much worth your time.  Rosebush has now written a book: True Reagan: What Made Ronald Reagan Great and Why It Matters.  Nordlinger asks captivating questions about Nancy Reagan's dabbling in astrology, Ronald Reagan's favorite hymn, his alleged lack of intimate friends, etc.  I found it not only an enlightening interview, but an edifying one as well.  Click here.

JAY NORDLINGER - "I WISH I WERE A HOOSIER..."

I wish I were, too  Nordlinger writes:

I wish I were a Hoosier... … so that I could vote for Ted Cruz tomorrow. A sterling Reagan conservative. A classical liberal. A believer in limited government, the rule of law, free enterprise, peace through strength, the right to life. A smart man, a decent man. A bold man, a persistent man. My friend (incidentally). The kind of person who ought to be president of the United States.

He’d be great for the country, and world. So would Carly Fiorina, as vice president. They are a dream ticket for me. I believe a Cruz-Fiorina administration would be curative. I believe we would see quick and marked improvement in the economy, foreign policy, the courts — everywhere.

People say they will lose. That may be. Good and meritorious people have lost before. But I hope they win. I know they would be excellent in office, as I’ve said. Wouldn’t it be something to see it tested? Confirmed?

As regular readers know, I regard Trump and Hillary as unfit. Equally unfit, in different ways. But I regard Ted ’n’ Carly as marvelously fit. I hope Indiana voters will pull the lever for them. And that Nebraskans, West Virginians, and others will later.

I know that many disagree. They can write their own blogposts. I’m with you, Ted ’n’ Carly, and I’m grateful for you. Wish I were in Indiana to express it through a ballot.

TED CRUZ CHOOSES CARLY FIORINA AS HIS VICE-PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE

I really like Carly Fiorina.  She will bring zip and pop to Cruz's campaign.  Her witty rebuttals to Donald Trump in the early debates were devastating.  She can hold her own against Trump and expose him as the empty windbag  that he is.   She will give Hilary Clinton nightmares.  Cruz made a wise move in selecting Carly at this early stage.  Here is her acceptance speech.

 

TED CRUZ A "DOMINIONIST"? NO!

Robert Gagnon and Elizabeth Humphreys set the record straight.  And it does indeed need to be set straight! In their article, "Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist," they address many misrepresentations of the man and his faith.   They write:

. . .  Some have charged Cruz with being a “dominionist.” John Fea, professor of American history at Messiah College, raised this issue in an article in Religion News Service(picked up by theWashington Post). Another version of his views was recently published in Christianity Today. Fea is echoed by Warren Throckmorton, professor of psychology at Grove City College, and byFrederick Clarkson, author of Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy(1997). Then there is the provocative article by Jay Michaelson, an LGBT activist and religion columnist at The Daily Beast, “Does Ted Cruz Think He’s the Messiah?”

Dominion theology and dominionism were terms coined in 1989 by sociologist Sara Diamond(Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right), referring to Christians who want to take over the government and six other facets of society (the media, business, arts and entertainment, education, family, and religion), together known as the “Seven Mountains.” Diamond views this as “the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right.”

The term has become elastic, encompassing Christians who believe the United States was once a predominantly Christian nation as well as those who hold “right-wing” views. But as many writers have noted, this elastic sense has become a bogeyman. Jewish journalist Stanley Kurtzcalled it “conspiratorial nonsense,” while Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson declared: “Thin charges of dominionism are just another attempt to discredit opponents rather than answer them.” Even the liberal journalist Lisa Miller called the loose accusation of dominionism “the paranoid mot du jour” (On the dubious ways that this term is used, see also Joe Carter.)

Cruz, however, is not a dominionist. As a teenager he joined the Constitutional Corroborators, travelling throughout Texas reciting from memory the text of the Constitution up through the Bill of Rights. He was taught law at Princeton by Robert George, and at Harvard Law School byAlan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who is Jewish, observed that he was “one of the brightest students we ever had.” Cruz, with his formidable knowledge of the Constitution, is a passionate proponent for a republican form of government with checks and balances, accessible to all.

Accordingly, he stands against those who would use the Constitution as a cipher for personal ideology. Liberal proponents of a “living Constitution” seek to amend the Constitution by the fiat of unelected liberal jurists, bypassing the constitutionally-prescribed process of amendment. As Abraham Lincoln said, if American citizens accepted the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, they would “have ceased to be their own rulers, having … practically resigned their government into the hands of that … tribunal.” Cruz’s view is consonant with two contemporary Catholic giants of jurisprudence: his professor, Robert George, and his mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. George wrote us:

The contemporary religious Left’s version of McCarthyist red-baiting is to smear opponents by labeling them “dominionists.” … Ted’s not a dominionist; he’s a constitutionalist. I’ve known Senator Cruz for more than half his life. I supervised his junior year independent project and senior thesis at Princeton, working with him closely on the Constitution’s protections of liberty by way of structural limitations on power. I’ve stayed closely in touch with him in the years since, sometimes discussing constitutional questions (especially those pertaining to religious freedom). In 31 years of teaching constitutional law and civil liberties, and 25 years of serving on various capacities in public life, never have I met a person whose fidelity to the Constitution was deeper than Senator Cruz’s.

When Ben Carson asserted he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,”Cruz rejected that view: “The Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office, and I am a constitutionalist.” At a CNN Milwaukee Republican Presidential Town Hall discussion, Cruz responded to the concern that his Christian faith would interfere when “making decisions for all religions in the United States.” He replied,  (more. . .)

 

WATCH: Rich Lowry Explains What a Contested Convention Means for the GOP

It won't be a bad thing.

 

TRUMP HAS ALWAYS BEEN A WANNABE MUSSOLINI

To anyone who cares about the future of America, Charles C.W. Cooke's facts as recorded here (and below) need to be reckoned with.  Cooke:

Jay — you note that Donald Trump praised the massacre at Tiananmen Square and suggested that the USSR was too weak:

QUICK TAKES

    ** On Iraq - Historian Victor Davis Hanson on the Iraq war    The sort of serious analysis and reporting never seen found in mainstream writing (which incidentally throws Trump down from his pedestal)  UPDATE 3/15/16 -  Jay Nordinger's audio interview with Victor Davis Hanson

 

    ** Evangelical leaders on picking a Presidential nominee - Interesting "inside" stuff 

 

    ** Andrew C. McCarthy (the sharpest and most reliable mind around when it comes to Islam and terrorism) writes:  "Why Closing Gitmo is still a terrible idea."

 

    ** Charles Cooke - electing Trump would be "an unmitigated, unalloyed, potentially unsalvageable disaster"  Cooke says Trump must be stopped:  

 

The anti-Trump forces that still make up the majority of the Republican coalition must begin an expedited Manhattan Project, the sole aim of which is to bring down the front-runner piece by unpleasant piece. “If not us, who?” Ronald Reagan asked in the heat of the 1981 budget battle. “If not now, when?” Time to go nuclear, chaps.

GOP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE DISGRACEFUL

Last night's debate went out of control.  Trump acted like a town drunk, the audience high schoolish, and the moderators like hapless parents unable to control unruly children.  As far as analysis goes, David French offered as good a summary as I have seen (below).   [Photo above is of a moment of silent prayer on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Does Trump ever bow his head?]  French:

I’m done. Until the fundamental dynamic of the GOP primary race changes, I’m done with parsing debate winners and losers. So long as Donald Trump dominates an overly-large field of ambitious, fratricidal competitors, we will continue to see absurdities like the following:

 

1. Trump — the Republican front-runner, no less — borrowing language from MoveOn.org and Daily Kos to advance the absurd “Bush lied, people died” Iraq War narrative, attacking his fellow Republicans with far more fury than even Hillary Clinton can muster.

 

2. Trump repeatedly and loudly holding George Bush responsible for 9/11 and the fall of the World Trade Center.

 

3. An extended GOP defense of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, courtesy of Ohio’s extraordinarily sanctimonious John Kasich. Using talking points that Democrats would envy, he cloaked his embrace of an inferior, third-class government insurance program in the language of compassion and fiscal responsibility. In an ordinary race, Kasich would be long gone — shoved aside by genuine conservatives and an afterthought even in moderate New Hampshire.

 

4. Trump (yes, him again) actually extolling the virtues of Planned Parenthood on a GOP debate stage. As a businessman who built a “world-class company,” surely he understands that injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into a business helps the entire enterprise stay afloat. That’s what taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood do for the nation’s largest abortion provider, even if taxpayer dollars don’t “directly” subsidize abortion.

RABIDLY ANTI-CHRISTIAN LEFT ATTACKS HEIDI CRUZ

Heidi Cruz, wife of GOP Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz, made statements today regarding the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country that rankled the militant secularists.

David French writes:

The scandal du jour, from the ignorant, anti-Christian sectors of the Left, comes courtesy of a brief excerpt of a radio interview with Heidi Cruz, Ted Cruz’s wife:

For those who don’t have 92 seconds to listen, here are the quotes that caused Ken Meyer at Mediaite to call Cruz’s statements a bizarre rant:

We are at a cultural crossroads in our country, and if we can be in this race to show this country the face of the God that we serve — this Christian God that we serve is the foundation of our country, our country was built on Judeo-Christian values, we are a nation of freedom of religion, but the God of Christianity is the God of freedom, of individual liberty, of choice and of consequence.

Jon Green, a regional field director for Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, also found this excerpt offensive:

I think that’s something that this country really needs to be reminded of, is that Christians are loving people, are nonjudgmental people, but there is right and wrong, we have a country of law and order, there are consequences to actions and we must all live peaceably in our own faiths under the Constitution. And Ted is uniquely able to deliver on that combination of the law and religion.

Green comments:

Thomas Jefferson envisioned a wall of separation between Church and State. Ted Cruz envisions that wall being torn down entirely. He’s not judging, he just thinks people who disagree are wrong and bad.

In reality, Heidi Cruz’s comment represents a standard (and accurate) expression not just of Evangelical beliefs, but also of American history. Christians aspire to “show the face of God” in all that we do — by imitating as much as we can our Savior, Jesus Christ. We fail often, but we’re better for the effort. As for Cruz’s statement that our nation was built on “Judeo-Christian values,”

 

TONY PERKINS OF THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL ENDORSES TED CRUZ

Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council, last night endorsed Ted Cruz as his personal choice for President of the United States.  (He was not speaking on behalf of the FRC organization).  What he says (below) about the next president bearing responsibility to appoint at least two or three new Supreme Court justices should sober all voters.  Here is Perkins' statement from his Facebook page:   

 

I am personally endorsing Ted Cruz for President of the United States.
Here is why:

Ted is a constitutional conservative who will fight for faith, family and freedom. He will defend our right to believe and live according to those beliefs. Our families will be protected and freedom will once again mean something in America.

I trust Ted to fight to pull America out of the political and cultural tailspin that President Obama’s policies have put us in. This is no normal election; this election is about the very survival of our Constitution and our republic.

The next president will likely appoint two or three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will impact our nation for decades to come. Unfortunately, previous Republican presidents have either been unable to identify liberal jurists in conservative clothing or have been unwilling to fight for true conservative nominees.

MARCO RUBIO OFFERS A REMARKABLE RESPONSE TO AN ATHEIST'S CHALLENGE

Listening to this interchange has raised my respect for Marco Rubio very high indeed.  It happens that I am a Ted Cruz supporter at this point, but I am truly impressed with Marco Rubio's response.

 

 ** Interesting update (1/21/16):  Evangelical leaders support Rubio by a wide margin but evangelical rank and file support Trump by a wide margin.  Story here.

10 REASONS TO VOTE FOR TED CRUZ

David P. Goldman writes:

10. He really knows economics--not the ideologically driven pablum dished out at universities, but the real battlefield of entrenched monopolies against entrepreneurial upstarts. As Asheesh Agarwal and John Delacourt reported in this space, he did a brilliant job at the Federal Trade Commission: "Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government’s role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers." Anyone can propose tax cuts. It takes real know-how to cut through the regulatory kudzu that is strangling America enterprise.

9. He really knows foreign policy. He is a hardline defender of American interests, but wants to keep American politics out of the export business. That's why neo-conservatives like Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post and Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal keep sliming him. The Bushies started attacking Cruz a year ago, when he stated the obvious about the Bush administration's great adventure in "democratic globalism": "I think we stayed too long, and we got far too involved in nation-building….We should not be trying to turn Iraq into Switzerland." He's not beholden to the bunglers of the Bush administration, unlike the hapless Marco Rubio.

8. He really knows the political system. As Texas solicitor general, he argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and won five of them. How many other lawyers in the United States have gone to the Supreme Court nine times on points of Constitutional law? The best write-up I've seen on his brilliance as a Constitutional lawyer came from the liberal New Yorker--grudging praise, but praise nevertheless. Some of his legal work was brilliant, displaying a refined understanding of separation of powers and federalism. If you want a president who knows the mechanism of American governance from the inside, there's no-one else who comes close to Cruz.

7. He's an outsider, and America needs an outsider. The public thinks that Washington is corrupt, and it IS corrupt. The banks are corrupt, the defense industries (with their $1.5 trillion budget for a new fighter plane that won't fly) are corrupt, the tech companies (run by patent trolls rather than engineers) are corrupt, the public utilities are corrupt. The American people want a new broom. But it helps to put it in the hands of someone who knows his way around the broom closet.

6. Trump and Carson aren't serious candidates. Carson is an endearing fellow who has no business running for president: apart from his medical specialty, his knowledge of the world is an autodidact's jumble of fact and fantasy. Donald Trump inherited money and ran a family business: never in his life did he have to persuade shareholders, investors, directors, or anyone else to work with him. At best, he knew how to cajole and threaten. It's been his way or the highway since he was a kid, and that's the worst possible training for a U.S. president.

5. Cruz is in but not of the system. The distinguished conservative scholar Robert P. George mentored him at Princeton and the flamboyant (but effective) liberal Alan Dershowitz taught him at Harvard Law School. Both agree he was the smartest student they ever had. An Ivy League education isn't important unless, of course, you don't have one: to run the United States, it helps to have dwelt in the belly of the beast. Cruz came through the elite university mill with his principles intact, and a keen understanding of the liberal mentality.

4. He's got real grit--call it fire in the belly, but Cruz wants to be president and wants us to want him to be president. Determination is a lot more important than charm, where Cruz won't win first prize. When it comes down to it, Americans don't want a charming president, but a smart, tough and decent one. Marco Rubio, the Establishment's last hope after Jeb Bush's belly-flop, is instantly recognizable as the tough-guy hero's cute younger brother. Either Cruz or Fiorina would fill out the ticket.

3. He knows how to run a real campaign as opposed to a flash-in-the-pan media event. Cruz has boots on the ground, an organization of people who believe in him and raise money at twice the rate of Rubio--with an averge $66 donation.

2. He's a true believer in the United States of America. His love for his country and belief in its prospects are impassioned and unfeigned. He's ambitious, but his ambition stems from a desire to serve, where he believes that he is uniquely qualified to serve.

And the top reason to vote for Ted Cruz is:

He can beat Hillary Clinton. Not just beat her, but beat her by a landslide. Mrs. Clinton isn't that smart. She looks sort of smart when the media toss her softballs, but in a series of one-to-one, nowhere-to-hide presidential debates, Cruz would shred her. Cruz was the top college debater in the country. He knows how to assemble facts, stay on message, anticipate his opponent's moves and neutralize them. He's a quarter-century younger than Mrs. Clinton, smarter, sharper, and better prepared. He's also clean as a whistle in personal life and finances, while the Clintons could reasonably be understood to constitute a criminal enterprise.

QUICK TAKES

John McWhorter - English is weirder than pretty much any other language

Jim Geraghty - Bobby Jindal's amazing accomplishments in Louisiana.  Why didn't people pay attention?

Victor Davis Hanson - The Debacle that is the contemporary American university

Hillsdale College offering:  A free 9 week online lecture series on C.S. Lewis

The Atlantic - What ISIS really wants   

BEN CARSON EXPOSES ISLAMIC TAQIYYA

Egyptian born-Raymond Ibrahim writes:

Of all the points presidential candidate Ben Carson made in defense of his position that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” most poignant is his reference to taqiyya, one of Islam’s doctrines of deception. 

According to Carson, whoever becomes president should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran”:

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”

“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

However, on several occasions Carson mentioned “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution.

“Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.

There’s much to be said here.  First, considering that the current U.S. president has expunged all reference to Islam in security documents and would have Americans believe that Islamic doctrine is more or less like Christianity, it is certainly refreshing to see a presidential candidate referencing a little known but critically important Muslim doctrine.  

As for the widely cited notion that taqiyya is a Shia doctrine, this needs to be corrected, as it lets the world’s vast majority of Muslims, the Sunnis, off the hook.  According to Sami Mukaram, one of the world’s foremost authorities on taqiyya, 

CARLY FIORINA - THE GOLDA MEIR OF THE UNITED STATES?

MUST WATCH video of Carly Fiorina tackling simultaneously Iran and Planned Parenthood!

 David French comments:

Carly Fiorina laid out the harsh and cold truth about Planned Parenthood in a way no other candidate has to date, amidst the media blackout . ..  She is worth quoting and heeding:

      "I dare Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to watch these [Planned Parenthood] tapes! Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, it’s legs kicking, while somebody says, “We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain!” This is about the character of our nation. And if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us! Shame on us. Shame on Senator McConnell. Forcing a veto brings the issue to light, it does not shut down the government."

MARK LEVIN: DEMOCRATS ‘WILL HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS’ FOR SUPPORTING IRAN DEAL

 

Jordan Schachtal of Breitbart writes:

Nationally-renowned author and Conservative talk show host Mark Levin sent a defiant message to GOP leadership Wednesday afternoon at the Stop Iran rally at Capitol Hill.

In his fiery speech, Levin demanded they do more to stop the deal. He also took aim at Democrat leadership in both the legislative branch and the White House, suggesting that the Iran deal shows how far to the left the Democratic Party has fallen.

“Never before has a President of the United States. Never before has a political party consented to funding and arming the enemy. Never before has a President entered into agreements with a terrorist regime that holds American hostages; that has killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers, and that seeks nuclear weapons and ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles)  to attack his own country,” said Levin.

“Barack Obama makes Neville Chamberlain look like George S. Patton,” the former Reagan staffer added.

Levin highlighted the dangers involved if the deal were to be implemented in Congress.

DONALD TRUMP ON GOD AND FORGIVENESS

 

TED CRUZ LAMBASTS MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL

Allahpundit at HotAir introduces the Cruz speech on the Senate floor saying:

I’m not going to excerpt it for you, despite the length. You need to watch it all; if you can’t spare 20 minutes, at least watch the middle third where he gets into corporate cooptation of the one-party state. This is one of the most brutal attacks — not incorrect, mind you, just brutal — you’ll ever see by a senator on his colleagues, starting with his own majority leader. Sample quote: “[This majority] does get things done, but it listens to one and only one voice: That is, the voice of the Washington cartel, of the lobbyists on K Street, of the big money and big corporations.” This guy is talking about his own caucus.

 

CARLY FIORINA SPEAKS OUT ON ABORTION WITH CLARITY AND PASSION

As others have noted, Carly Fiorina will not be cowed by the liberal press into a defensive corner.  She's a Tiger!

 

Transcript:

JAKE TAPPER: Let's turn to the question of abortions. I know you want to talk about it. One of your opponents, Scott Walker, signed a law in Wisconsin this week which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of a pregnancy. On Twitter, HIllary Clinton said:

"Governor Walker signed dangerous abortion restrictions into law in Wisconsin — without exceptions for rape and incest. Extreme and unacceptable."

Walker retweeted her, and called her "out of touch with most Americans."

What's your position on this legislation, which does not allow exceptions for rape and incest?

FIORINA: Well, let's talk about the legislation that's sitting on the Senate floor right now, which does allow for those exceptions —

TAPPER: So you —

FIORINA: Let's also talk about, let's also talk about Hillary Clinton's position. Let’s also talk about Hillary Clinton’s position. Let’s talk about what extreme is. It’s not a life until it leaves the hospital. That’s Hillary Clinton’s position. It’s Hillary Clinton’s position that a 13-year-old girl needs her mother’s permission to go to a tanning salon or a tattoo, but not to get an abortion.

It's Hillary Clinton's position that women should not be permitted to look at an ultrasound before an abortion, and yet people who are trying to harvest body parts can use an ultrasound to make sure that those body parts are preserved so they can be sold. That, Jake, is extreme.

TAPPER: Just to clarify — you think there should be an exception for rape and incest?

FIORINA: I would really be delighted if for once the media would ask Hillary Clinton about the extremism of her position.

TAPPER: Well, let's —

FIORINA: It’s not a life, it's not a life until it leaves the hospital.

My position is very clear. It's been very clear and consistent ever since I ran for the Senate in 2010. Anyone can look it up. (Subtext: "You know the answer to the question, Jake, so why are you wasting everyone's time on the house fire while the city is ablaze?" — Ed.) Yes, I support exceptions.

But the majority of the American people now believe that abortion for any reason at all to be paid for by taxpayers after five months is an abomination. And this videotape, whether you're a pro-choice woman or a pro-life woman, this videotape is depraved. The casual nature with which these people are talking about fetuses, and tissue and apecimens. I tell you what, if a woman was looking at the ultrasound at the same stage of pregnancy, the doctor would not be talking about fetuses, or specimens or tissues. They would be saying, "Look at your baby's heartbeat. Look at your baby's eyes. Look at your baby's organs."

TAPPER: Carly Fiorina, thank you so much. Thank you for taking our questions.

Tom Blumer at Newsbusters correctly observes:

Fiorina answered Tapper's question, but she made the larger points, and forcefully.

If Fiorina doesn't get the 2016 presidential or vice-presidential nomination — and those who haven't been taking her seriously need to start doing so — she should be hired immediately by whoever does so she can train them to face the hostile media. It's been many years since I've seen a GOP candidate handle the press in such a consistently deft and poised manner. 

Rush Limbaugh likewise waxes enthusiastic over Carly Fiorina's skill at handling the press.

. . .  Start your focus of attack on Hillary Clinton.  She's the enemy.  The Democrat Party's the opponent.  You know she's gonna be the nominee.  Hit her.  Start now.  It's a great way to explain who you are, in fact, by contrasting yourself. 

This is my advice, okay?  And one person either took the advice or instinctively knew to do it on her own, and that's Carly Fiorina, who, by the way, she's just, I think, kicking butt all over the country, folks.  Every stop never gets off message. She handles the media with aplomb and skill and it's obvious she enjoys doing it, and she's schooling people.  She's showing how it's done.  Latest example, Tuesday night, CNN, The Lead with Jake Tapper. 

Update:  See Warren Cole Smith's interview with Scott Klusendorf, "A Lesson in pro-life apologetics."  

WHY A CONSERVATIVE SHOULDN'T GET EXCITED ABOUT DONALD TRUMP

He's been a conservative for about 10 minutes.  Read his past statements.

Update 7/11/15 -  Jonah Goldberg piles on 

Update 7/14/15 - Daniel Greenfield - Why Trump is Winning    Greenfield's article not only explains Trump's current successes, but advances a "take it to the enemy" approach that can reconfigure public opinion and win elections.  I think Greenfield is absolutely right.

 . . The real way to show voters that you care about them is by being a fighter.  Cheering the boxer who is the “nicer” guy is a losing proposition . . . 

Donald Trump shot out ahead of the pack by being a fighter. His political positions right now may be the opposite of his old positions, but few people care because they see him throwing and taking punches in the ring. They see him burning through a $3 billion brand just to get into the race.

In a campaign where the other candidates have carefully nuanced positions on most of the issues, Trump shows no signs of nuance. He may be widely inconsistent, denouncing illegal aliens one day and endorsing amnesty the next, but frustrated voters are sending a message that they want a fighter. . . .

Taking the fight to the enemy is scary. That’s why most politicians don’t do it. It’s easier to dance around, duck and hope you won’t get hit too hard when the time comes. Republican voters have become used to politicians who throw a halfhearted punch, play to the crowd and then play it safe.

That’s not what Trump is doing. He keeps taking hits and throwing punches. He may lose. He may take the Republicans down with him, but the base is happy just to see someone get out there and fight.

The left has a huge media and political infrastructure built in a plan that its activists have been pursuing for generations. It’s time someone punched them and their plan in the face.  . . .

If the Republican Party wants to win something more than a seat at the pork table, its candidates will have to fight. They will get hurt. They will get beaten. But if they fight hard and well enough, the momentum will shift. Playing defense will never shift the momentum. At best it will extract the occasional meaningless victory that will end up disgusting even its own supporters.

The basic formula isn’t hard. Take an issue. Punch the left in the face over it. Don’t go on the defensive when the media whips up outrage. Don’t justify, apologize and explain. Instead punch harder. 

Punch the left in the face over illegal alien crime, over its pro-crime policies and its massive debt, its war on religion, its hatred for the family and its obsession with censorship and control. Hit it over its failed foreign policy, its lost wars, its sympathy for terrorists, its lawlessness and abuses of power.

Keep hitting the left until it forgets its plans, until it feels doubt, until splits begin to form among moderate and extreme Democrats that translate into political defeats and compromises.

That’s not just how you win fights. It’s how you win victories that make a difference.

 Read the whole thing...

JEB BUSH'S 2015 COMMENCEMENT SPEECH AT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

I thought it a terrific speech.  So did National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez whose summary and comments follow below.  Update 5/15/15:  Peter Wehner at Commentary offered a thoughtful appreciation, summed up to some extent in this paragraph:

When you read the speech in whole, what stands out, I think, is that Governor Bush is articulating his understanding of the Christian faith in a way that is principled but not harsh, in a manner that is persuasive rather than aggressive, unapologetic and not offensive. He cares very much about the state of the culture, but he’s no culture warrior. This speech was his effort to unwind some fairly widespread caricatures, to represent his faith in a way that invites understanding rather than promotes division and distrust.

 

Lopez writes:

It can be a touchy subject,” Jeb Bush said during his commencement speech at Liberty University this weekend. “I am asked sometimes whether I would ever allow my decisions in government to be influenced by my Christian faith.” “Whenever I hear this,” the former governor of Florida, said, “I know what they want me to say.”

“Whenever I hear this,” the former governor of Florida, said, “I know what they want me to say.”

We of faith do know; we hear it increasingly said and see the idea behind it increasingly enforced. In many ways it’s what people have been saying since John F. Kennedy’s (in)famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. Indeed, since Kennedy, Catholics have led the way on this question for better or worse, first in seeking a place at the table of American civil society, then in diluting our contribution to it by privatizing and relegating to Sundays some of the best we have to offer.

This is not true of all Christians, thanks be to God. But it has been a scandal in our public witness and has allowed for the manipulation and marginalization of religious people that we see today.

Back to Jeb. When asked about if his Christian faith would influence his politics in any real way, he said:

 The simple and safe reply is, ‘No. Never. Of course not.’ If the game is political correctness, that’s the answer that moves you to the next round. The endpoint is a certain kind of politician we’ve all heard before — the guy whose moral convictions are so private, so deeply personal, that he refuses even to impose them on himself. 

Yes, that’s the game. And playing that way gets us to the point where we see Christianity making less of a difference in American political and cultural life. It’s a difference that, from our earliest days, we’ve relied on, that we’ve needed. It’s one that has been a corrective and a conscience.

And so Bush continued, knowing where we are, and assuming he was speaking to an audience poised to work to turn things around in whatever fields they go into, as Christians in environments — and a country — increasingly hostile to public, robust religious engagement beyond worship services or comfort or nostalgia: “The mistake is to confuse points of theology with moral principles that are knowable to reason as well as by faith. And this confusion is all part of a false narrative that casts religious Americans as intolerant scolds, running around trying to impose their views on everyone.”

QUICK TAKES

Peter Stamford reports:  Are Smartphones Making our Children Mentally Ill?

Steve Wozniak - The Future of AI is Scary and Very Bad for People

V.S. Naipaul - Nobel winner says Isis is Now the Fourth Reich

Mark Levin - "We Don't Need a Governor as President"  (True)

RALPH REED - CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS VOTERS MADE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE 2014 ELECTIONS

Ralph Reed writes: 

. . . Perhaps no theme of 2014 ran more sharply in contrast to the conventional wisdom than the decisive role played by Evangelical Christians and other voters of faith. According to a post-election survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, conservative Christians made up nearly one out of every three voters and voted eight-to-one for Republican candidates, creating the crest of a Republican wave that resulted in control of the U.S. Senate, a likely post–World War II high-water mark majority in the U.S. House, and critical victories in governors’ races.

On Election Day, self-identified conservative Christians made up 32 percent of the electorate and voted 86 percent Republican and only 12 percent Democrat. These voters contributed an astonishing 52.4 percent of all the votes received by Republican candidates. This constituency, the largest and most vibrant in the electorate, is larger than the African-American vote, Hispanic vote, union vote, and gay vote combined. White Evangelicals, meanwhile, made up 23 percent of the electorate and voted 82 percent Republican and 18 percent Democratic, according to the survey. 

FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN JEWISH, MUSLIM & CHRISTIAN KIDS IN A TEL AVIV SCHOOL

Heartwarming.  From CBN News:

 

SEN. TED CRUZ CAPTIVATES VALUES VOTERS SUMMIT

Ted Cruz's fire and pizzaz set him apart from others.  

  

From Politico:  By KATIE GLUECK 

Rand Paul talked foreign policy. Rick Santorum decried flagging family values. Michele Bachmann called for war on radical Islam.

But it was Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas who captivated the crowd of social conservatives in Washington Friday, again showcasing his appeal with that critical part of the GOP should he run in 2016.

VIDEO: TED CRUZ BOOED OFF STAGE BY MIDDLE EASTERN CHRISTIANS

David Brody of CBN News reports:

 

Broody:

Well, Senator Ted Cruz had an interesting night in Washington DC Wednesday night and our Brody File camera crew was there to capture it all.

Middle Eastern Christians booed Cruz off the stage during his speech at a summit in Washington DC. It was sponsored by a group called, ‘In Defense of Christians.” Cruz came to speak about Christian solidarity with Israel but some in the crowd were Palestinian Christian supporters of the Syrian government and even the terrorist group Hezbollah. Things got rowdy. Watch the video below to see how it unfolded. Partial transcript below as well.

Senator Ted Cruz: “Those who hate Israel hate America. Those who hate Jews hate Christians. If those in this room will not recognize that, then my heart weeps. If you hate the Jewish people you are not reflecting the teachings of Christ. And the very same people who persecute and murder Christians right now, who crucify Christians, who behead children, are the very same people who target Jews for their faith, for the same reason.”

Senator Ted Cruz: “My heart weeps that the men and women here will not stand in solidarity with Jews and Christians alike who are persecuted by radicals.”

ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS USE DIRTY METHODS TO FIGHT AGAINST TRUE CONSERVATIVES

Ken Cuccinelli II, the President, of the Senate Conservatives Fund, tells what happened iu the recent Republican Mississippi primary:

The Senate Republican establishment used Democrats to defeat conservative Chris McDaniel (R-MS) because Thad Cochran (R-MS) couldn't win the election with his party's own voters.

These so-called 'Republicans' recruited Democrats -- not by arguing for conservative principles like Ronald Reagan did -- but by campaigning for liberal policies and by calling McDaniel and his supporters racists.

You are right to be angry and it's important for all conservatives to remember what happened in Mississippi.

• We must remember that the establishment urged Cochran to run against McDaniel even though Cochran wanted to retire.
   
• We must remember that the establishment opposed McDaniel even though Cochran had been in Washington for 41 years and had voted for wasteful spending, more debt, and higher taxes.
   
• We must remember that the establishment opposed McDaniel even though, according to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, McDaniel would win the seat for Republicans in November.
   
• We must remember that Haley Barbourgot the gun-grabbing Michael Bloombergto donate $250,000 to help defeat McDaniel.

• We must remember that the establishment funded race-baiting calls to black voters urging them to "say no to the Tea Party and their disrespectful treatment of the first African-American president."
   
• We must remember that the establishment funded race-baiting flyers saying that McDaniel wanted to return Mississippi to a“bygone era of intimidating black Mississippians from voting.”

• We must remember that the establishment funded race-baiting radio ads that claimed McDaniel had connections to the Ku Klux Klan and that McDaniel had a "racist agenda" that could cause black voters to "lose food stamps, housing assistance, student loans, early breakfast and lunch programs, and disaster assistance."

• We must remember that the establishment funded efforts that led to widespread claims of payoffs and voter fraud that threw the results of the election into serious doubt.
   
• We must remember that Mitch McConnell (R-KY) -- who vowed to "crush" conservatives "everywhere" -- raised over $800,000 from Washington, DC lobbyists and other GOP senators to help pay for Cochran's attacks against McDaniel.
   
• We must remember that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) continued to oppose McDaniel after he won the most Republican votes in the primary, and then spent $175,000 of party money to defeat McDaniel in the runoff.

The establishment showed us in Mississippi that they're willing to betray their own voters and tear the GOP apart to hold on to power.

TEXAS SENATOR TED CRUZ'S FATHER IS A CONSERVATIVE SENSATION

You'll enjoy reading this report.  (HT: Drudge)

RUSH LIMBAUGH - RESISTANCE TO OBAMA HAS MELTED AWAY

I heard part of Limbaugh's commentary today  and felt disheartened.   Limbaugh says Santa Claus trumps freedom, Santa Claus trumps working, Santa Claus trumps everything.  And I think he's right:

[...] That's why Cantor is saying, "We're gonna have to do a better job of explaining who we are. We need to do a better job of explaining why we're doing what we're doing." Well, I think that epitomizes how lost they all feel -- and right now, folks, there is no fight. There's no desire for it. There's no fight mentality. There is no desire for any opposition of any kind at this point in time. That's what all of this means. It's a direct outcome of the 2012 election. It is Santa Claus trumping freedom. Santa Claus trumps everything. Santa Claus beats fiscal responsibility. Santa Claus beats individual liberty. Santa Claus beats individual responsibility. Santa Claus trumps all of this. It's no more complicated than that, but that's exactly what all of this means.

Santa Claus trumps everything.  Santa Claus trumps working.  Everybody loves Santa Claus.  That bugs 'em.  They think there's nothing in it.  There's no upside to opposing anything that's happening in the country right now.  And it's gonna get even worse as issues come up and more Republicans throw in the towel.  That is going to happen.  And I have no idea what's gonna arrest it.  At some point it'll stop.  At some point it's gonna reverse itself.  I don't know what it's gonna be, when, I haven't the slightest idea.  But Kasich's up for reelection.  He lost the state of Ohio, it went Obama, it went Democrat.  He's reading tea leaves.  Other governors are doing the same thing. 

There's some holdouts.  I mean, not every Republican is throwing in the towel.  But for the most part, the overarching philosophy or theory is there's nothing to be gained in opposing Obama.  The media's gonna come out and destroy you. The American people love Santa Claus and don't want to hear any opposition.  That's just gonna be categorized as mean-spiritedness, extremism, racism, what have you.  So you're gonna have to bite the bullet for a while, let this play out, because there's nothing that's gonna stop this, nothing foreseen that's going to stop it.  Something will, but I don't know what or when, but something will arrest this.  Because it always happens.

GOP STRIPS TEA PARTY MEMBERS OF KEY CONGRESSIONAL ROLES

Conservative will be antagonized by this dumb (and malicious?) move.  Count me among them.  Be sure to scroll down to listen to Mark Levin's analysis of President Obama and Speaker Boehner.  The more I think about Levin's analysis the more I think he is right.    Though I hate to think ill of anyone, Levin may be right in calling Boehner self-protective, a climber, and out of his league vis-a-vis Obama.

 

John Jessup, CBN News Washington correspondent reports:

WASHINGTON -- Two years after Tea Party conservatives swept House Republicans into power, GOP leaders appear to be sweeping some of those same Tea Party lawmakers under the rug.

Some believe it's because they're too conservative.

Tea Party Purge

Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp is a Tea Party Republican who came to Washington on a mission to rein in an out-of-control government.

"I was critical of the debt deal, which created the fiscal cliff," he told CBN News. "I was critical of the spending increases. I was critical of a lack of progress taking down Obamacare."

As one of Congress's most conservative members, his principles sometimes puts him at odds with party leaders. He was among the first Republicans to criticize House Speaker John Boehner's plan to avert the fiscal cliff.

"When you talk about $800 billion in new revenue I don't see how you do that without some pretty large increases in taxes," Huelskamp said. "And I've been very clear, as have most Republicans, that I don't want to raise taxes."

Huelskamp suggested the strong conservative stances he and other Tea Party colleagues have taken on issues like abortion and marriage may be one reason for the tension with GOP leaders. Listen to his comments below:

On the same day Boehner unveiled his counterproposal to the White House plan, he broke some bad news to certain members in his conference: Huelskamp along with North Carolina Rep. Walter B. Jones, Arizona Rep. David Schweikert, and Michigan Rep. Justice Amash were getting booted from their prime committee posts.

"Really, it's a slap in the face of all young people who are out there thinking about being Republicans," Amash said.

Huelskamp and Amash, both freshman, were removed from the Budget Committee where they voted against the Republican budget created by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

Despite being removed from the committee posts, Huelskamp vowed he and his Tea Party colleagues would not be silenced. Watch his comments below:

"How much do you think this had to do with your votes against the Ryan budget?" CBN News's John Jessup asked Huelskamp.

"Again, that might be part of it. We don't know," the Kansas lawmaker replied.

They don't know because they weren't given an explanation.

CBN News contacted Boehner's office to get some answers, but was only given this response: "The (Republican) Steering Committee makes decisions based on a range of factors."

A Vindictive Move?

With nothing concrete, Huelskamp wonders if his pro-life, pro-traditional marriage policies may also be to blame.

"Perhaps that might be the reason that some folks do not like me to continue to speak up," Huelskamp speculated.

Whatever the reason, he's labeled the move "vindictive," noting how party leaders also stripped him from the Agriculture Committee.

Huelskamp shared more of his thoughts what he views as the GOP leadership's punitive actions below:

Huelskamp said his removal will mark the first time in 150 years that a Kansas lawmaker will not be on the roster.

Some have suggested that the House GOP leadership, much like that song about Santa, is making a list and checking to make sure rebellious Republicans pay a price.

As for Huelskamp, he vowed that -- above party -- he'll remain loyal to the people who are most important: his constituents.

In Addition:

Mark Levin analyzes the two major political figures now resident in Washington - President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner.  The Right Scoop introduces Levin's monologue (audio] saying:

Mark Levin steps into the shoes of both Obama and Boehner, explaining the mindset of both men and why they operate as they do. This isn’t a comparison of the two men, but rather an attempt to give a deeper insight into what’s really going on in Washington by explaining the two men. It’s excellent

Listen here...  Levin's commentary is definitely worth chewing on.

REMEMBERING RONALD REAGAN

Ronald Reagan's church put this together to commemorate the birthday of Ronald Reagan.  I think it magnificent and inspiring.  I remember well the media's treatment of Ronaldo Magnus.  It was deplorable, dishonorable, and poisonous.   The media's bias against conservativism has only intensified with the passing of time.  (HT: Joyce)

 

STANLEY KURTZ - "ARE REPUBLICANS FOOLING THEMSELVES?"

I share Stanley Kurtz's concerns.  The only way to cut through the media filter that continually masks Obama's hard left vision for America is for Romney to stress the ideological battle underlying this election.  He can't assume the American people see it clearly.  I've highlighted sentences that I think need emphasizing in Kurtz's piece.

Overall, the Democrats put on an effective show. With the possible exception of the McGovern convention, this was the most left-leaning Democratic gathering in memory. Some of that may have been counterproductive, particularly on social issues. To the extent that Republicans dismiss this convention as either a failure or relatively meaningless, however, I think we’re fooling ourselves.

This election could go either way. If Obama squeaks by, he will have done so with the help of a Democratic party that has taken a large, open, and disturbingly leftist turn. I think we’re missing the significance of that. It is completely accurate to say that the Democrats are pushing a bogus reformulation of the American way of life — slapping a bunch of flags on their Julia ad and turning classic conceptions of civic and religious community into covers for a cradle-to-grave welfare state. Unfortunately, this way of thinking is becoming the new normal in this country, and Obama and his convention have only helped to cement the change.

Conservatives can puncture these arguments all we like, but we can’t cut through the media filter. More than that, the conservative case can’t break through the left-controlled education system that has profoundly shaped the Millennials. True, youth unemployment is giving many second thoughts about Obama, yet it’s been more a matter of sapping Millennial enthusiasm than of changing attitudes and ideas.

Do demographics doom the expansive liberal welfare state, regardless? In some sense, they do. Yet if Obama is in the driver’s seat as our fiscal woes mount, he will use the crisis to further his restructuring. California is our advance guard — our Greece — yet their budget crisis is two months away from prompting one of the boldest redistributionist transformations this country has seen in years (even if barely anyone knows it yet).

Only the Romney campaign can cut through the cultural, educational, and media filters and force a debate over the Obama Democrats’ bogus redefinition of the American dream. The media can ignore what conservatives say, but they still have to cover the candidate. With the exception of his welfare ads, however, the Romney campaign has avoided an assault on Obama’s ideology. Romney’s entirely plausible strategy is to downplay the ideological battle (Ryan nomination notwithstanding).  [A terrible mistake to my way of thinking.  I agree with Kurtz]

As the Romney campaign sees it, the tiny sliver of remaining undecided voters consists of mildly disillusioned former Obama supporters, or at least voters who personally like Obama. Coaxing these folks to “break up” with their erstwhile beau means not making them feel like they were fools to buy into Obama’s vision to begin with. That cuts against any effort to unmask the president’s overweening leftist ambitions. Let’s just say that the president’s a nice guy who’s in over his head instead.

Okay, but Michelle Obama did a very effective job of pressing undecideds to give her nice-guy another try. And the convention as a whole did a better job of redefining government as nice-guyism writ large than Republicans would like to admit. Charles Krauthammer says that the counter to all this is exposing Obama as “a deeply committed social democrat” using his presidential power to enact the same “ambitious left-wing agenda” he “developed in his youth.” Well, yes. So far as I can tell, however, this sort of argument is the last thing the Romney campaign wants to make right now. Don’t want to drive away that tiny sliver of Obama’s wavering admirers.

I can’t say for certain that Romney’s strategy is wrong. But I do think it’s far riskier than we realize. Treating Obama as a nice guy in over his head, rather than a smart leftist who knows exactly what he’s doing, leaves the Democrats’ bogus narrative about government unanswered. America is changing, and Republicans are naive to rely on the public to simply recognize the problems in the Democrats’ claims without significant help from our nominee.

Republicans won big in 2010 by defining Obama as an overweening ideologue. Yet that was the Tea Party’s doing, not the Republican establishment. In those days, Romney even jumped on the tea-party bandwagon with some surprisingly cutting observations about Obama’s leftism. Obama may not have pivoted after the 2010 election, but Republicans did. They toned down their attacks on the president’s ideology, and to some extent helped to build up the very wall of “likeability” they now fear to scale, even as the president rejected the Clintonian way and stayed to the left. Were Republicans smart to hold their fire? Romney did try out the argument that Obama is moving us toward European-style social democracy during the primaries, but he’s dropped that now in favor of the kinder and gentler “break up” approach.

Republican reticence on these issues has been going on for a while. Beginning with John McCain in 2008, the party establishment has done a weak job of challenging the core Democratic narrative of the causes of the financial crisis. Clinton laid the foundations of the subprime meltdown, and Obama himself was in on the ground floor of the fiasco. If the public is willing to cut Obama some slack for the economic problems he inherited, that is partly because we’ve allowed him to define the problem to begin with.

I don’t have access to the Romney campaign’s focus-group and survey data. Maybe they’re right to try to pry away those erstwhile Obama supporters in only the gentlest of ways. Yet I worry that the Romneyites are fooling themselves. Technocrats and fixers from a state where liberals dominate, they are neither inclined or prepared to show how the Obama Democrats are slowly redefining American exceptionalism into the European social democratic dream. Romney may squeak by on bad unemployment numbers and gentle coaxing of undecideds, but patriotic veneer the Democrats have managed to slap on their leftism is worrisome. If Obama wins, it will be because we allowed him to get away with it.

REPUBLICAN PLATFORM - THE BEST ONE YET

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research council, reports:

Yesterday, Republicans enthusiastically approved the GOP platform, which Phyllis Schlafly said might be "the best one ever adopted," and as someone who had a hand in its creation, I agree. It is, as Phyllis points out, a true reflection of American values. The final document artfully combines the social, fiscal, and defense priorities of the GOP. For me personally, platform week was a proud moment as I watched the FRC Action team work with precision behind the scenes. Thanks to their expertise, we were able to have unprecedented influence on core conservative issues. As a delegate, I had the opportunity to basically rewrite the marriage plank, which led to the committee approving a much stronger version than 2008's.

"The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children... The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity." (For the full text, click over to page 31).

The media also picked up on FRCA's tough language on adult obscenity and pornography (page 32), meant to combat the Obama's administration's indifference on the issue. Together with our allies, we also moved to protect school-based clinics from the abortion industry (page 36), enforce conscience rights and federal marriage law in the military (page 46), push for faith-based exemptions in health care (page 34), explain how abortion hurts women (page 33), and support the right to self-defense through D.C. gun laws (page 13).

And while some Republicans try to downplay the significance of the platform, a new poll suggests these leaders are underestimating its importance to the American people. More voters are interested in learning about the GOP platform (52%) than hearing its speeches (44%). But if there was one speech that I hope they did catch, it was former Senator Rick Santorum's. Despite an endless parade of presenters--representing some of the best the Republican Party has to offer--Rick's remarks were the only ones of the night to highlight moral and social issues. "I thank God," he said, "that America still has one party that reaches out their hands in love to lift up all of God's children--born and unborn--and says that each of us has dignity and all of us have the right to live the American Dream."

If people want to understand why Santorum's campaign resonated with so many Americans, it's because he shares their passion for homegrown values. On the tough issues, he doesn't run away from his convictions--he runs toward them. And in these next two critical months, the Republican Party would be wise to follow.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER'S RECALL VICTORY SPEECH

What a gracious, God-fearing, family-faithful, courageous, articulate man! 

Here's an Associated Press summary of the issues triggering the recall vote:

Walker entered the national spotlight last year when he unveiled plans to plug a $3.6 billion budget shortfall in part by taking away the union rights of most public workers and requiring them to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits. It was one of his first moves in office, and it was explosive.

Democrats and labor leaders saw it as a political tactic designed to gut the power of his opposition. State Senate Democrats left Wisconsin for three weeks in a sort of filibuster, as tens of thousands of teachers, state workers and others rallied at the Capitol in protest.

But the tea-party supported fiscal conservative remained steadfast. Walker believed his plan would help him control the state budget, and his opponents could not stop Republicans who control the state Legislature from approving his plans.

Walker went on to sign into law several other measures that fueled the recall, including repealing a law giving discrimination victims more ways to sue for damages, making deep cuts to public schools and higher education, and requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Both sides mobilized thousands of people and millions of dollars to influence voters, whom polls showed were more divided than ever. Signs calling for Walker's removal and those supporting the 44-year-old son of a minister dotted the state's landscape all spring at a time normally devoid of political contests.

More than $66 million was spent on the race as of May 21, making it easily the most expensive in Wisconsin history. That money was spent on an all-out barrage of television ads, direct mail, automated calls and other advertising that permeated the state for months.

Also Tuesday, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and at least three Republicans in state Senate races survived recalls. Unofficial results showed the Democrat ahead in the other Senate race, the outcome of which will determine which party controls the Senate at least through the end of the year.

Walker avoided gloating in his speech and offered his adversaries a fresh start.

"Now it is time to move on and move forward in Wisconsin," Walker said in his speech. "Tomorrow is the day after the election, and tomorrow we are no longer opponents."

Me: This summary doesn't mention that Gov. Walker is solidly pro-life!

RICK SANTORUM'S VISION FOR AMERICA

 

REPUBLICAN RISING STAR - REP. RENEE ELLERS (NC)

Jim Loft over at Gateway Pundit titles his post, "Freshman Rep. Ellmers Schools Henry Waxman in Committee (Video)" 

FROM THE VIDEO: Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), took on Henry Waxman (D-CA) in spectacular fashion today in a joint House-Senate hearing on the payroll tax cut extension.

Me: I think we'll be hearing a lot more from Rep. Ellmers.  Especially if she continues to do her homework and speak as boldly and articulately as she did here.  Hooray for her.  May her tribe increase a hundredfold and more.

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, February 9, 2012, 8:41 AM

 

 

Freshman Representative and rising star Renee Ellmers (R-NC) schooled far left darling Henry Waxman in committee.
This was great–

From the video: Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), took on Henry Waxman (D-CA) in spectacular fashion today in a joint House-Senate hearing on the payroll tax cut extension.

SARAH PALIN - "CANNIBALS IN GOP ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOY TACTICS OF THE LEFT"

I am impressed with Sarah Palin's take on what's been going on in the Florida GOP primary.  You owe it to yourself to read her comments in full. 

And may I say in passing, that others also recognize the despicably sinister, untrue, totally unfair attacks being levelled at Newt by the GOP establishment who want to sew up Romney's nomination as the GOP presidential candidate.  I say this as a Rick Santorum supporter.  (See Jeffrey Lord, "Elliot Abrams caught misleading on Newt.")

Click "continue reading" below for Sarah Palin's comments.

USEFUL WINTERY KNIGHT BLOG POSTS

Wintery Knight continues to produce excellent blog posts.  He's especially good on Christian apologetics, politics and economics.   Here are some posts I looked at tonight and found helpful:

    -  "Rick Santorum for President of the United States"  - (I heartily agree!)    

    -  "A Christian and a postmodern relativist debate atheism and Christianity"

    -  "Michael Murray explains how to talk about religion in the public square."

    -  "Bad news for believers in naturalistic explanations of the Cambrian explosion"

Wintery Knight appended a note as he closed out 2011:

I also wanted to report to you that Wintery Knight was recently named to the Top 40 Conservative Blogs for the fourth quarter of 2011 by John Hawkins of Right Wing News. And we were also received one of the Fabulous 50 Blog Awards from Doug Ross. We tied for “Best Political Blogging”. I also want to thank Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 for frequently linking to my posts on Christian apologetics and theology in his Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links.

NEWT GINGRICH: THE LEFT TRYING TO DESTROY TRADITIONAL RELIGION IS A THREAT TO OUR CIVILIZATION

Newt Gingrich speaking today in Iowa at the Thanksgiving Family Forum GOP Presidential Debate:

Will this man stay solidified in his views, overcoming erratic tendencies and huge disappointments and questionable activities displayed in his past?  If so, he could be the person providentially inspired to redirect American leadership away from its present destructive, suicidal path.

     - Update note 11/21/11: - Gingrich's embryonic stem-cell history problematic (but Romney's abortion record much worse as a commenter indicated).

The entire video of the forum, moderated by pollster Frank Luntz, can be viewed here.  The actual candidate forum begins at about 30 minutes in if you jump ahead.  Participants include Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Santorum.  (I'm not sure why the two Mormons, Huntsman and Romney, did not participate.)

Katrina Trinko reported for National Review Online: 

WHY NEWT GINGRICH MAY WIN THE EVANGELICAL VOTE

I have a hard time faulting Ryan Mauro's reasoning.   Richard Land (Director of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission), thinks Newt has a serious problem with evangelical women.   I'm not convinced of that.  Read more. . .

Update 11/19/11:  For the record, the nasty story of Gingrich serving divorce papers to his wife as she lay dying of cancer is untrue.  Click here.

HERMAN CAIN TO BLACKS: DIVORCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Larry Elder wrote a column using the above title and concluded his article saying:

Cain believes what former slave Booker T. Washington wrote a mere 35 years after slavery ended: "When a Negro girl learns to cook, to wash dishes, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or to be able to practise medicine, as well or better than some one else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or colour. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants.

"I think that the whole future of my race hinges on the question as to whether or not it can make itself of such indispensable value that the people in the town and the state where we reside will feel that our presence is necessary to the happiness and well-being of the community. No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual, and moral well-being of the place in which he lives is long left without proper reward. This is a great human law which cannot be permanently nullified."

Or, as Cain puts it, "I left the Democrat plantation a long time ago."

HERMAN CAINE DESERVES SERIOUS CONSIDERATION

Cain:  Black community "brain-washed" into voting for Dems. -   Video

Dennis Henninger sees Cain as impressive:

The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain's life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.

Herman Cain is a credible candidate. Whether he deserves to be president is something voters will decide. But he deserves a serious look.  (Read all of Henninger's analysis)

 

Wintery Knight has assembled a penetrating look at Herman Caine.  WK links to a biography of Herman Caine.  Most of us are probably familiar with Caine's extensive and successful business experience, but we may not be aware of his computational excellence as well.

Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee, on December 13, 1945, the son of Lenora (née Davis) and Luther Cain, Jr.His mother was a cleaner and his father was a chauffeur.He was raised in Georgia. He graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971,while he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. Cain has authored four books: Leadership is Common Sense (1997), Speak as a Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October 2001), and They Think You’re Stupid (May 2005). He also authored an article titled “The Intangibles of Implementation” in the technical journal Interfaces (Vol. 9, No. 5, 1979, pp. 144-147), published by the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS).

The man is obviously underrated, but Cain is steadily  converting people to his cause. He thinks he can gain one-third of the Black vote if nominated.  Why not?  I would hope it would be more.  I'll be keeping my eye on Herman Caine.  I also like Rick Santorum.  I hope Michele Bachmann can mount a comeback as well. 

Update:  For a negative view on Herman Caine's economics from a fellow conservative, see Kevin D. Williamson's perspective.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO MAKES HIS MARK SPEAKING AT THE REAGAN PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

At the invitation of Nancy Reagan, Senator Marco Rubio (R) of Florida gave a memorable speech at the Reagan Presidential Library in California a few days ago.  I viewed the video below at Wintry Knight's blog and came away greatly impressed.  Senator Rubio is unquestionably one of the bright stars of the Republican party -- and of the United States as a whole.  He says what needs to be said with extradinary clarity, vigor, and sincerity.   The principles he enuniates are those the United States must embrace to recover its greatness.   Nile Gardiner of the U.K. Telegraph says the address

deserves to be widely read, both at home and abroad. Like [Congressman Paul] Ryan, Rubio offers a powerful rejection of the Big Government approach that has crippled America’s economy, and outlines a firm defence of the free market, championed by Ronald Reagan

Those who like to chew on the spoken word can find the transcript here.

From Gardiner's Telegraph article:

In Rubio’s words:

The free enterprise system does not leave people behind. People are poor and people are left behind because they do not have access to the free enterprise system because something in their lives or in their community has denied them access to the free enterprise system. All over the world this truism is expressing itself every single day. Every nation on the Earth that embraces market economics and the free enterprise system is pulling millions of its people out of poverty. The free enterprise system creates prosperity, not denies it.

In the most poignant part of the speech, Rubio paid tribute to his grandfather, who fled Cuba for the United States in search of liberty and freedom. Rubio’s grandfather embodied the American dream, and understood the true meaning of American exceptionalism as someone who had escaped the grip of communist tyranny:

My grandfather loved being Cuban. He loved being from Cuba. He never would have left Cuba if he didn’t have to. But he knew America was special. He knew that without America Cuba would still be a Spanish colony. He knew that without America the Nazis and Imperial Japan would have won World War II. When he was born in 1899 there weren’t even airplanes. By the time I was born, an American had walked on the surface of the moon.

And he knew something else. He knew that he had lost his country. And that the only thing from preventing other people in the world from losing theirs to communism was this country – this nation.

It is easy for us who are born here – like me – and so many of you, to take for granted how special and unique this place is. But when you come from somewhere else, when what you always knew and loved, you lost, you don’t have that luxury.

My Grandfather didn’t know America was exceptional because he read about it in a book. He knew about it because he lived it and saw it with his eyes. That powerful lesson is the story of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. It’s our legacy as a people. And it’s who we have a chance to be again. And I think that’s important for all of us because being an American is not just a blessing, it’s a responsibility.

Me: For readers who might be interested, it appears that Rubio attends both a Roman Catholic church and also Christ Fellowship, an evangelical congregation.