"Let us resolve that young Americans will always find there is a city of hope in a country that is free...and let us resolve that they will say of our day and our generation, we did keep faith with our God, that we did act worthy of ourselves, that we did protect and pass on lovingly that shining city on a hill."

Ronald Reagan,
40th President of the United State

City On A Hill Blog Supports Ted Cruz

City On A Hill Blog Supports Ted Cruz

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

On Cruz & Rubio: The Central Question for the Conservative Movement

Cruz is the man in the arena.  Rubio speaks well & takes orders.
On the surface, Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio seem very similar.  They are both Cuban-American first-term senators elected largely with the support of the tea party in elections where they ran as outsiders.  In terms of their voting record, Cruz is more conservative, but in some scoring sites like The Heritage Foundation, Rubio’s conservative voting score is ranked as high as 94%.  Conservative Review’s record for Rubio is a more accurate 80%.

The issue with Rubio’s candidacy is not necessarily a concern of conservative ideological purity.  I do not question that Rubio is a conservative.  His voting record is unremarkably conservative in that it is just strong enough to alleviate concerns from the grassroots on the right, but not too inflexible in order to avoid frightening off establishment supporters.

But those of us who do our homework know that concerns with Rubio are deeper than that. The issue with Rubio’s candidacy is not whether he’s sufficiently conservative, it’s that his sycophancy to party donors and leadership almost always trumps any conservative ideals he may hold.

In short, he may very well be conservative, but he’s demonstrated that he’s a flexible donor-friendly conservative willing to bend his ideals if that curries favor with the party machine or content to participate in show votes to protect the facade of conservatism propped up by the GOP establishment.

Therein lies the major—and hugely significant—difference between Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio.  Cruz is willing to stand in the arena alone to fight the party leadership when it has lost his way, and Rubio runs for the exit.

Mr. Rubio may usually be a reliable conservative vote in the senate, but he lacks the fighter instinct necessary in a president.  His approach to politics is more of a theatric tightrope walk between serving the party machine and throwing scraps to the people who elected him.

That’s not to suggest that some level of compromise is always a bad thing.  President Reagan understood well how to compromise by prioritizing his agenda and ensuring that he got far more than he gave.  (With the noted exception of the 1986 amnesty deal that he later came to regret.)  A leader, a President, needs to possess 3 core traits consistently—to be able to advocate for his convictions, serve the people over party and fight passionately, consistently, and at some cost to his own power and standing to stand on his principles in the arena of politics.

Ronald Reagan could do all 3.  Every GOP nominee since he left the stage has not been able to.  They’ve all either lacked one of those three or been unable to consistently possess all 3.

Ted Cruz unquestionably possesses all 3 as evidenced in his DC battles, his ongoing fight with the GOP leadership, his massive grassroots appeal, his fealty to his campaign promises and the voters who supported them, and his ability to articulate conservatism on the national stage.

Marco Rubio misses the mark a bit.  He can advocate for his convictions quite well, however his political career has demonstrated an inability to stand on principle when it might cost him, and the pattern of putting party over the people.

That’s not to suggest that Mr. Rubio is necessarily a bad man.  He’s a conventional politician. Politicians typically ascend the ladder of power by playing the game, going along to get along, and falling in line when the higher ups demand fealty.  The problem is that the Republican party has long since abandoned any semblance of a genuine conservative vision or ideology.  Their voting base has not.  And so the GOP now views its voting base with contempt and as an unruly gaggle to be tricked into submission via theatrics, public relations propaganda, and silver-tongued spokespeople.

In reality, the party is now simply the other side of the coin of the Democratic party.  Where the Democratic party advances the cause of larger government and feeds itself through crony capitalism, the Republican party does the same through a hybrid of big government and big corporations.

Reagan unwaveringly championed free markets often against the wishes of his own party, and in so doing, he took down the Soviet Union, ended the Cold War, and restored fiscal growth to the United States of America.  The Republican party, by contrast,  is the champion of the well-connected, seeking to rig the system for their crony capitalist masters in order to maintain lifetime power in DC.  A Republican politician that plays this game can expect to stay in DC for decades, some as long as 50 years or so—even well past the point where senility has set in.  These career politicians essentially believe themselves to be nobility, unfettered to any responsibility to everyday Americans and unbound by the very rigged system that they help to maintain at the behest of their masters.

As such, it will not be enough to elect a Republican puppet as president.  A John McCain or Mitt Romney will not do after 8 disastrous years of Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation.  America needs a Reagan.

And by Reagan, I don’t just mean someone with charisma who speaks well.  I mean someone who possesses those 3 traits consistently as Reagan did.  Rubio has proven himself in the role of advocating for his ideals and many well-intentioned conservatives are swayed by his abilities in this area.  But speaking well on conservatism will not cure America’s ills.  Being willing to stand up to your own party, showing America that your convictions will always be paramount, and standing for the people over the ruling class is what is needed.

Much has been made of Mr. Rubio’s support of amnesty via the Gang of 8.  He was a willing participate and a passionate advocate for said amnesty.  Whether that was the true Rubio or not is debatable.  What is not is that his position in that fight was anathema to his voting base and the desired outcome for his party bosses.

When Senator Cruz, Senator Lee, and Senator Paul stand for liberty against the president and against the party leadership, Mr. Rubio is nowhere to be found. When Senator Cruz attempted to defund Planned Parenthood, Rubio was conveniently out of town.  .  When Ted Cruz took the red-eye after a GOP presidential debate to return to DC on the final attempt to stop the bad Iran Deal, Mr. Rubio again failed to return to take a stand. 

When Ted Cruz attempts to shame the Republican leadership into honoring the commitments that they made to the people who voted for them, Marco Rubio is strangely silent.  When Senator Cruz attacks crony capitalism via sugar subsidies and bailouts, Rubio quietly supports those subsidies and tempers his remarks to be more milquetoast and signal his amenability toward working with the party establishment.

In short, while Rubio may hold a conservative viewpoint and be comfortable selling that via well delivered scripted speeches and even more scripted debate answers (how many times do we need to be reminded that his dad was a bartender and his mom was a maid in exactly the same wording?) he is highly adverse to advocating for them in the United States Senate or to the party leadership in any meaningful way.

There is a reason why establishment commentators, consultants, and politicians are now talking up Marco Rubio as the next great hope for the Republican party.  It’s because Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Lindsey Graham have failed miserably.  Rubio is the last standing candidate that they hold sway over.  He is their silver bullet during this anti-establishment, grassroots 1980-style political moment.  And if his stage presence, charisma and youth can convince enough genuine conservatives to back him as the “most electable” candidate, they will have won another election cycle for the status quo.

Some folks have championed Donald Trump as the man to decimate the Republican machine and the corrupt politicians in DC.  He certainly has beaten them like a rented mule this cycle. I definitely understand the appeal of his candidacy.  A simple google search, however, into his legion of political positions on virtually every issue over the years and stretching into this very campaign, shows that his core political agenda is murky at best.  And while he likes to compare himself to Reagan’s conversion from Hollywood liberal Democrat to conservative Republican rockstar, Reagan’s conversion occurred decades prior to his presidency, and he had a lengthy and consistent track record of advocating conservatism.  Mr. Trump does not possess all 3 traits necessary to be the kind of leader that America needs.

It will not be enough to merely replace the current radical in the White House with an outsider with fluid political principles.

This is why the people are starting to wake up to Ted Cruz’s candidacy.  His rise in Iowa and in national polling suggests that voters are beginning to do their homework.  And for millions of voters from my generation and younger, we’ve never had a real conservative on the ballot for president.  We’ve never had the opportunity to vote for someone who believes as we do, can articulate it beautifully to a wide audience, and who is willing to sacrifice his own political career to fight for it.

Ted Cruz is the living embodiment of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous “man in the arena” speech.  As the old rough rider so powerfully put it:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

In a party led by cold and timid souls, Ted Cruz is the doer of deeds, marred by the dust of the political establishment, striving valiantly to stand for conservatism and the truth of the constitution.  A man willing to be politically bloodied in order to stand with and fight for the people.  He is the fighter that America needs to reignite the promise of America.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

GOP Debate: Cruz Dominates, Kasich Annoys

Senator Cruz won the night.  
Last night's GOP debate was the first debate this cycle to actually resemble a real debate.  The moderators did not ask inane questions about fantasy football.  They didn't sling insults and condescension to the candidates.  They didn't talk back to them while they were answering.  They didn't explore nonsense topics like insulting Rosie O'Donnell on twitter.  They asked about real issues and they respected the responses of the candidates.  They asked tough questions and they challenged the candidates on their responses from time to time, but they did their job with professionalism.  It was a refreshing change. Bravo, Fox Business Network!

I may be biased but I believe Ted Cruz won the night.  He once again demonstrated a clarity of vision and a masterful articulation of the issues in substantive ways that can be understood by everyday Americans.  Sure, he called for abolishing the Commerce Department twice, but that was hardly another Perry "oops" moment.  He simply repeated the Commerce Department instead of listing the Education Department.  For more on the departments Cruz wants to abolish and why, see his National Review column.

Many have made Marco Rubio the king of the debate.  Much of that is suspect based on the dynamics of the race.  By that I mean that I notice a lot of establishment types who populate the media talking up Rubio like giggling fanboys and fangirls.  This is because Rubio is their fallback.  Now that Jeb!, Christie, Graham, Pataki, and Kasich have demonstrated that they are going nowhere fast, they are rushing to Rubio.  They know that Rubio supports the amnesty that their crony capitalist masters want.  They know that he supports many of the subsidies that Cruz railed against last night. They know that Rubio is someone that they can fool enough conservatives with but who will work with them toward their crony capitalist agenda.

And let me say this: Rubio is much preferable to the gaggle of RINO candidates in this race.  He can side with us on a lot of things that those RINOs would not.  He would represent an improvement over the last two election candidates.  He is not, however, a leader.  He lets Cruz, Paul, and Lee lead the fights in the senate and is often conveniently out of town when the big fights go down.  He has demonstrated time and time again that he is Republican first and conservative second.  Also, if anyone pays any attention to politics at all they will know that Rubio's debate lines are almost exclusively from his stump speech.  "My dad was a bartender and my mom was a maid," and "I'm not representing the past, I'm for the 21st century," and the like.  Good lines, but they will wear thin if that's all he has, even if he can name drop Candy Crush.

For me the biggest contrast between proclaimed co-winners Cruz and Rubio was on their economic plans.  Cruz gave a clear answer of the specifics on his 10% flat tax.  He explained what that meant for the economy and for workers.  He gave clear specifics on how his plan would benefit working class people.  And in that answer, he demonstrated his ability to articulate conservatism and how it will help average Americans who are often told that conservatives want to kill their grandparents, starve their children, and bankrupt them.

Rubio, by contrast, went on to discuss how important families are and kept repeating his mantra of the need to strengthen families.  That's all well and good, but that's not an economic plan.  He failed to give specifics about his plan other than that he loves families and would continue the child tax credit.  And there's the difference between the two.  Cruz can deftly speak on specifics in language that everyday folks can understand.  Rubio can speak in scripted generalities that he delivers well.

Another key moment for Cruz was when he deftly reframed the immigration issue.  Watch below:

By tying the immigration issue to the economic impact on working class Americans that the ruling class seems not to notice or care about, Cruz positioned himself firmly on the side of the rule of law and on the side of working class Americans.  This re-framing of this debate is exactly why Ted Cruz won the night. By contrast, Rubio is vulnerable on this issue having been part of the disastrous amnesty pushing Gang of 8, and having told Spanish-speaking audiences twice that he supports amnesty.

Aside from the Ted and Marco show, some others did well:

Carly Fiorina had a good night.  I love how she always brings up crony capitalism in every answer that she offers.  She's really great on highlighting that core issue.  She was forceful and direct and she even got the better of Trump in one exchange.  She did well for herself tonight, but I don't know that she's going to see much change in her position as she was overshadowed by Cruz and Rubio.

Rand Paul had a pretty good night except for when he put on his tinfoil hat and talked foreign policy. Paul is great on personal liberty and fiscal policies but he's a little scary and naive on foreign policy.  In fact, his back and forth with Marco Rubio, where Rubio declared Paul an "isolationist" also led into one of Cruz's best moments.  While Rubio and Paul swiped at each other, Cruz inserted himself into the back and forth and made himself look like a reasonable consensus builder as he highlighted the good points each was making and suggesting a new way that would incorporate both of their concerns.  See below:

Donald Trump was again more understated than usual.  In the last two debates, Mr. Trump has looked much more presidential.  He's definitely growing into the politician role while maintaining his tough guy celebrity image.  He dismissed the out of control leftist stooge John Kasich by saying "I don't need to hear from this man."

Ben Carson doesn't debate well.  He made no mistakes, but again he comes across as timid and uncertain.  His near whispering of a speaking presence doesn't inspire.  That being said, Carson's fans love him for who he is and not for how he can debate.  He didn't make any mistakes and he continues to come across as a good man.  I don't expect his support to go up after this debate, but I don't expect it to go down necessarily either unless some of his supporters move to Rubio or Cruz.

Jeb Bush is a disaster.  He's either so boring that you instantly fall asleep, or shouting at you to demonstrate his energy and vigor.  He also focuses on nonsense issues that nobody cares about.
He need to drop out.  He has no chance and this debate will not change that.  He's a sad shadow of a monarchy befuddled that people would dare deny him his throne.  The only time he showed genuine passion was when he advocated for amnesty.

The worst performance by far. however, was John Kasich.  Kasich was a lunatic.  He inserted himself endlessly as though this was his talk show.  He basically advocated for the left every chance he got. Fiscal policy that cuts taxes, refuses to bailout big banks and corporations is horrifying to him.  According to Kasich, you need to abandon principles as an executive or something.  He then passionately lectured the field on deporting illegals, because children or something.  His performance was one of a cranky old man who won't shut up.  He shot himself in the foot and will not be helped in any way by this debate.  He should be running in the Democratic primary.

On the loser early bird debate, there are no winners.  If you are diminished by being a part of that debate, you aren't a winner.  None of those folks have any chance.  Jindal did what he needed to do to reveal the difference in the rhetoric of Christie and Huckabee and their actual abysmal records as governors.

Many are saying Christie, who devolved into Teddy Ruxpin during this debate, won the early debate. This cuts to my point about Rubio.  Christie's record here in NJ is a disaster and anything but conservative.  Whether he is entertaining or well-spoken is irrelevant to me.  He doesn't walk the walk.  Rubio often doesn't either, or he at least limps slowly when doing so.  If voters do their homework beyond who can speak well, they will realize that there is one person in this race that has always fought for us and that is Senator Ted Cruz.

After this debate the dynamics of the race will not change much at all. There are really only 4 people with a chance at winning: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.  Trump and Carson didn't do anything to hurt themselves so their numbers should hold.  Rubio and Cruz might rise a bit to get closer to Carson and Trump in the polls, but they will still remain the top four.

Monday, October 19, 2015

GOP Struggle Is Real: Ryan Stands for Party, Cruz Stands for Principle

Ryan stands for party, Cruz stands for principle.  There is a difference.
As the GOP continues to try to sell Paul Ryan as an acceptable candidate for Speaker, the battle for the soul of the party continues.

Many have framed it as a conservative vs. moderate ideological struggle.  There is certainly a component of that. The problem with merely framing the struggle in ideological terms is that people like Paul Ryan can be viewed as an acceptable alternative because of his reputation as a "conservative" member of the house.

The question that the GOP desperately needs to settle in the next political cycle is whether or not the party will elevate and follow party men and women or visionaries and fighters.  The GOP used to have a flame of liberty within to light the path forward.  This flame championed and protected by visionary leaders like Ronald Reagan, has long since grown cold and the eyes of the GOP power brokers have been hypnotized by the allure of gold and power instead of liberty's spark.

It is in the chasm between the compliant "yes" men and women of the GOP establishment and the vigorous advocacy of conservative political reforms championed by Ted Cruz and grassroots conservatives that this battle lies.

Some people will look at Paul Ryan and see a nice guy and a conservative.  He certainly was sold as a conservative running mate to placate the base when "severely" conservative (see also moderate) Mitt Romney selected him in 2012 to join the ticket.  His most recent voting record, however, betrays that political image.  According to Conservative Review, Paul Ryan's voting record scores a 58% F conservative rating.  According to Heritage, it is 55% F.

In what world is a 58% conservative voting record considered conservative? At best, he could be considered a moderate.  And yet, he certainly started as a conservative.  His voting record at the time of his selection in 2012 was 75%.  It was higher in earlier years of his career.

Ryan is the poster child of what's wrong with today's GOP.  His career bespeaks of a Lord of the Rings ring of power style corruption of a conservative into an establishment moderate.  It's a story that's been repeated on the national stage time and time again.  Ryan may have once been a conservative, but his biggest claim to fame is that he is a compliant party man first and foremost.

I wrote about this during the 2012 campaign:

Budget-hawk Ryan was one of just 32 Republicans to vote for TARP in 2008.  On the floor of the House, Representative Ryan opined: 
"TARP offends my principles...I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles. In order to preserve this free enterprise system.” 
Ryan voted FOR the GM bailout and the expansion of medicare under George W. Bush in 2003.  He also voted for the pork-laden spending bill containing the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in 2005.  Ryan voted repeatedly under George W. Bush to increase the debt limit. 
If Ryan is indeed a conservative, he has followed the same path of many in the establishment--drifting left over the last decade and falling in line on votes, where he votes against his "principles" in order to maintain a good reputation within the system of graft and corruption among the GOP career politicians.

No, if the Ryan situation demonstrates anything, it is that the battle may have started out as a conservative vs. moderate struggle, but now it's devolved into a struggle against a corrupt system that strangles the conservatism out of politicians the longer they stay in office.  In other words, the struggle between conservative and moderate has already ended in victory for the moderates within the GOP party structure.

That is the real struggle.  It's not enough to elect conservatives.  Power-hungry conservatives like Paul Ryan toss their convictions to the curb when confronted with the choice of principle or party.

Our quest is not just to elect conservatives to positions of influence.  It's to choose those willing to advocate a conservative vision for America and be willing to fight, even to the political death, for those principles.  Electing conservatives that will value process, major donors, party sycophancy and their own re-election over standing with the people who elected them and the principles on which they founded their political career will do us no good.

We need fighters, but too often we get compliant party sycophants playing dress-up in the garb of a fighter.

The GOP as a party has decided against the conservatism of Reagan, just as it's leaders always have.  The party leadership has never really embraced conservatism.  It's the people who vote for the GOP that have.  And just like in 1980, we are getting more and more independent-minded and desirous of consistent conservative fighters to lead us.

This continues to explain the appeal of outsiders like Donald Trump and Ben Carson.  While Carson is a good man and is seemingly conservative, his lack of political experience creates some doubt in the minds of voters too often burnt by people who have betrayed our principles before.  Supporting the record-less Carson takes a leap of faith that many of us just can't take again.  Trump, however,   has a downright terrifying record with regard to conservative principles, but his blunt take-no-prisoners style of politicking has largely obscured that fact from many voters.  His style combined with his celebrity status has propelled him to the front of the pack, but as voters begin to do their homework, they will find a lot of troubling red flags in Trump's record.  Not the lest of which is that he tweeted on election day 2012 that he always votes for the winner while congratulating his "friend" Barack Obama.  Or by gushing over eminent domain.  Or by praising a single-payer healthcare system.

Ted Cruz has no such inconsistency.  Ted Cruz has been declared by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity as the most consistent conservative running in the 2016 contest.  Ted Cruz has demonstrated total disregard for his political career as he daily commits political suicide by standing with the grassroots against the party leadership and the permanent political class.

This is why Ted Cruz is the best man for the job in 2016.  The people finally have a champion willing to take on the party and fight for our ideals.  We have a man who is standing on and articulating the values that we hold dear.  We have a man who has demonstrated time and time again that he is willing to fight for those principles regardless of the cost to his career.

That is the true fight in the 2016 race and in congress.  Conservatives need to rally behind fighters who will stand up to the party leadership and clean house.  It's time that the people who lead our party be those who value principle over party.  It's time for leadership that would rather be true to the people who voted for them than to the party itself.

A party label will not fix our nation's problems. A bold conservative agenda of reform and a restoration of constitutional governance will.  Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell will not lead us there.

Ted Cruz and other principled conservative fighters like the House Freedom Caucus will.  It's time to clean house and bring in new leadership to all levels of the GOP.  It's time to reignite the promise of America by reigniting the flame of liberty that once burned so brightly in the party of Lincoln and Reagan.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Game of Speakers: GOP Moment To Right The Ship

It's time for principled leadership in DC...
It's time for the people to take back their house.

After decades of feckless "leadership" by the likes of John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, the GOP has a real shot to put someone capable of leading in the speaker's chair.  Their decision will have massive ramifications for both their governing ability, but also their ability to articulate conservatism and attract voters for the 2016 election.

But that's only if the party is open to it and history suggests that it is not.

For years conservatives have been looked down on by the ruling class GOP leadership.  We have been insulted, marginalized, mocked, lied to, and ignored.  You don't see that on the Democratic side. Their leaders still hold the ruling class superiority complex, but they don't despise their base.

The GOP does with a searing passion unmatched in the political world.

And for years, talking heads and apologists for the corrupt crony capitalist-run GOP have told conservatives to know our place and fall in line. It's our best option.  We're all on the same team.

That, however, is the GOP's problem.  We know our place.  It's in the seat of power.  The government as designed by our constitution is one where the people have power.  Our founders never intended for a new ruling class elite to arise to horde power for themselves and their cronies and lord it over the people the way career politicians do now.

The past few years have revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the GOP leadership is not on our side.  It's no longer that they just lack the passion to advocate for conservatism, it's that in most things, they now advocate passionately against it and hope we don't notice if they hide it behind a few well-orchestrated show votes.

The fact is that we need term limits and we need them now.  We need lifetime bans on members of congress and their immediate family members from serving as lobbyists.  We need to end corporate welfare and cronyism and restore a true free market capitalism.  NONE of that will occur with John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan or any of the other entrenched career politicians that live for their coveted seat in the Washington Cartel.  Like Gollum with his precious ring, they have been corrupted.  There is no turning back for them.   They cannot be reasoned with and they simply do not see the problems facing us or their role in causing them.

And that's why it's important that the conservative members of the house continue to fight for this speaker election.  It's no longer time to sit down and shut up.  It's now or never.  It's time to fight back and take back the GOP or accept their eternal animosity toward us and strike out on our own.

It's no longer relevant which party controls the government in DC.  Both parties are part of the same crony capitalist system that is hellbent on maintaining the status quo and in continuing to usurp the personal liberty of everyday Americans so that they can eternally keep their own thrones in DC.

Now, it's unlikely that we will get a real solid conservative for speaker.  But the conservative members of the house should continue to press this issue until we get the most conservative candidate that we can.

The new flavor of the moment is Paul Ryan.  Ryan is not a conservative.  Is he articulate most of the time?  Sure.  Less loathsome than John Boehner?  Ok.  But he's not a conservative.  He's just not.

It's time for principled members of the house to stand for the office of speaker.  It's not enough to get these quasi-conservatives like Daniel Webster and Jason Chaffetz.  We need people unwilling to play the game, unwilling to accept the terms of the ruling class establishment, and unwilling to compromise their principles.  Webster has a D Liberty Score from Conservative Review.  Chaffetz has a better score, but was a willing stooge in carrying out the vengeful Boehner reprisals against insolent conservatives.  That shows weakness on both of their parts.  We need people who are more excited about their convictions than they are about their position.  We need people who run for office to advance a common sense return to conservative constitutional governance and not people who run to enhance their resume or to usurp power. We need people, who when told by party leadership to fall in line and abandon their principles, don't just say no, they say HELL NO.

The GOP leadership has been gorging on power for too long.  It's time to completely clean house.  And this is the moment to do it. This can be a great political awakening that will reverberate for years.

When people stand on principle over the money and trappings of power, they inspire others to do the same.  When they refuse to sit down and shut up in the face of overwhelming vitriol and opposition, they embolden others to do the same.  We're seeing that every day.  People are flocking to Trump's refusal to be silenced by the media or party leadership.  People are celebrating Ted Cruz's refusal to put "decorum" and senatorial sycophancy over stopping the slaughter of babies and stopping the deranged Iran deal from empowering Jihadists.  People are inspired by Ben Carson as he stands firm under a barrage of racism and vitriol from the intolerant left that is seething with rage that an uppity black man would dare leave the leftist thought plantation.

We want to win.  We want to restore America.  We want to be led.  And we no longer care what letter is affixed to the end of your name.  We care about your vision for America and about your integrity.

We need people worthy of the legacy of Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan.  It's time to reignite the promise of America and stop playing the games of the Washington insiders.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

The Rise & Fall of GOP Candidates: Inconsistency Doesn't Build A Strong Foundation

Fiorina: The next great hope or the next Bachmann?
The talking heads are gaga for Carly Fiorina.  Oh, she's the great hope of the party you know.  She's the one they all fear, you know.  She's so forceful and articulate!

A lot of the news coverage of the 2016 race that ISN'T about Donald Trump this week has centered around the rise of Carly Fiorina into the top tier.  In some polls, Ms. Fiorina is now 2nd to the Donald.

So now, "that face" is on all of the news channels opining about how wonderful she is and how many phone calls she would make to Putin and a gaggle of world dictators and terrorists when she arrives in the White House.

But that doesn't mean that Carly Fiorina will be the nominee.

We've seen in the last few cycles, that this media-driven process will elevate candidates and tear them down just as quickly.

And it's time to let you in on a little secret, it's because their records do not match their rhetoric.

Voters are clamoring for a consistent conservative.  We want someone who talks like a conservative articulately and forcefully during the campaigns, but also leads and votes like a conservative in the in between years.

The problem with many of these candidates is that they rocket to the top because of a few good debates or media savvy appearances without the substance to back that up.  Once people begin seriously looking at them as a candidate, they begin to read the terrible, horrible, no good things they've said and done in their political past.   Suddenly today's version of Margaret Thatcher reveals herself to be nothing more than a slightly less radical Hillary Clinton.

This happened last time to Rick Perry when he revealed himself to be a doofus during a debate and when people realized that he wasn't as rock solid in practice as he was in speeches.  It also happened to Michele Bachmann when people realized she was crazy.

Carly Fiorina is an articulate and dynamic speaker on the trail and in debates.  There is no question on that.  The question remains in her spotty record.  Pick an issue and she's been on both sides.  Donated to Hillary in 2008 shortly before advising John McCain's ill-fated campaign?  Check.  Pro-choice before becoming pro-life?  Check.  Made fun of her opponent's appearance before playing the victim card when someone did that to her?  Check.  Supporter of TARP and big corporate bailouts?  Check.

Once voters begin paying attention to her record, they realize that the Thatcher-esque Fiorina on stage is just an act like Lady Macbeth in the Globe Theater.

The only candidate thus far to be immune to the polling pitfalls of having a radically different campaign from his past positions and actions is Donald Trump.  And he's largely being supported because of his celebrity.  He gushed last night about the glory of eminent domain, so let's see if any conservatives wake up from that one.

That is why Ted Cruz has a real shot at the nomination.  When sober-minded conservatives look to make their selection for president, they will be looking for someone that won't betray them.  In that regard, Ted Cruz stands out from the crowd.  He's the most remarkably consistent candidate in a generation.  What he says during the heat of the campaign is what he will do during his tenure in office.  That is absolutely horrifying to the GOP leadership, but refreshingly inspiring to the unwashed masses in the conservative grassroots.

Fiorina has her day in the sun.  Let's see if she stands up to scrutiny.

From a long-term perspective, there still really only seems to be 4 possible GOP nominees:  Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio.

Let's hope the people rise up to reignite the promise of America with a consistent conservative instead of embracing another summer romance with a campaign conservative.


Sunday, October 4, 2015

No To McCarthy: Replacing Boehner With "Boehner 2" Isn't The Solution

McCarthy is more of the same. He's not the solution.
Conservatives around the nation rejoiced with the news that hapless fake-tanning lotion and golf enthusiast John Boehner was stepping down as Speaker of the House.  The lachrymose Boehner hasn't stopped weeping since. Whether the Gollum-like Boehner is mourning his loss of his precious DC power, or celebrating his future of golf and lobbying is unclear.

According to Boehner, it's everyone else's fault.  The crazy right-wingers and that jackass Ted Cruz are to blame for his departure.  They don't understand that you win in DC by losing.  You win by fighting tooth and nail to pass your opponent's agenda while staging show votes so that you have cover when you go back to sully yourself by talking to the rubes that vote for you.  You can tell those backward hicks that you voted against Obamacare, debt ceiling increases, funding for Planned Parenthood, the Iran Deal, confirming radical marxists for administration positions, and the entire Obama agenda knowing full well that you were responsible for passing it.

That's apparently the GOP leadership version of winning.  They have not won a single thing.  They've not gained one inch of ground in any voting matter in DC in the past decade without giving up several miles of ground to the radical leftists.

As Senator Ted Cruz put it--the Democrats will crawl over broken class to pass their agenda.

And the Republicans show nothing but apathy and lethargy unless one of the conservatives in their ranks is getting "uppity" like Ted Cruz.  Then they become full of sound and fury as they take to the airwaves and savagely attack the unruly and stubbornly principled conservative.

So, when the GOP starts telling us that replacing Boehner with his sidekick Kevin McCarthy is a good thing, it is rather revealing that they still don't get it.

McCarthy's voting record is abysmal.  According to Conservative Review, his "conservative" voting record is 45%.  That means that he sides with the conservative position less than half the time.  Does that sound like a vibrant leader for the GOP?  Does that sound like someone who can lead and articulate common sense conservatism?

The answer is resoundingly no.  Not only won't Mr. McCarthy articulate and sell a conservative vision for America, he will not even vote for it unless it's a show vote meant to provide him cover with the base.

The GOP has a unique opportunity right now to redefine itself.  The Donald Trump juggernaut should have shown the GOP power brokers that the American people are done with politics as usual and lying hack career politicians who sell out the people who voted for them. The top tier of the 2016 field consists of Trump, Carson, Florina, Rubio and Cruz.  Only Rubio is an establishment chum and he's only that high because Jeb Bush is collapsing in on himself like a dying star.

Consider the question posed by Ted Cruz: What exactly would be different in DC if the GOP hadn't retaken congress and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were running the show?

The answer is nothing.

If the GOP thinks that the next-in-line party man will appease the "volcanic anger" of the grassroots, they are sorely mistaken.  We didn't hate John Boehner personally.  We hated his lack of leadership and his obsession with maintaining the ruling class cronyism.  We want, no, we demand a principled conservative who will value principle over party to lead the House.

It's time for someone new.  Someone who actually believes conservatism.  Someone with a passion for common sense constitutional reforms.  Someone who can advocate a real alternative to the radical Obama agenda.  If the GOP can't muster enough nerve to find that person and simply foists the hapless crony McCarthy upon us, their electoral troubles will continue.

We are tired of being lied to.  We are tired of being despised by the people we vote for.  We are tired of pretending like it matters to the future of our country if the people running it have an "R" after their name or a "D" when we know it no longer does.

The first presidential election that I could vote in was 1996.  As a child of the 1980s, I had a front row seat to how awesome President Reagan was but I never had the opportunity to vote for him.

I'm sick of campaign conservatives who pretend they are the next Reagan or Thatcher during the election and then turn out to be Jimmy Carter when they get into office.  I just want to vote for someone who really means what they say during campaigns for once in my life.

And that's where many of us are right now.  In the 2016 presidential race and in the Speaker race, the GOP has the opportunity to prove to us that they are worthy of our support.  Should business as usual be the preferred direction of choice, they can travel that road without our support.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

On Obama's "Christianity"

Obama's Faith or Non-Faith is not the issue here...
The latest media game of distraction is whether or not we will all line up and mindlessly proclaim Barack Obama a Christian because he says so despite the evidence.

The nation is 19 trillion dollars in debt, Iran is set to get both nukes and billions of dollars in new terror funding from the US government, Obamacare has bankrupted both the medical profession and working class families, and record numbers of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed, but all the media can see fit to cover is whether or not the Republican candidates for president will publicly affirm Obama's alleged Christianity.  For if they will not, they are unserious crazy people unworthy of the presidency.  Or something.

The latest media game stems from an appearance by Donald Trump this week where a man asking a question alleged that Obama is a Muslim and Donald Trump didn't bother correcting him.

To the media, that is more shocking and horrifying that the genocidal for profit butchering of babies done by Planned Parenthood.

Suddenly, not just Trump, but every visible Republican must renounce some random man and wholeheartedly agree with the outraged media elites like Megyn Kelly, that Barack Obama is clearly a Christian.  Megyn Kelly, for example, seemed like she was going to stroke out during a focus group when a few people muttered that they weren't sure what Obama's true beliefs were.  "It's settled!! He's Christian!!" she exclaimed with red-faced fury.

The first point to be made here has been echoed by Donald Trump in response to this nonsense story: it's not our job to defend Barack Obama's "faith."  Of all the things necessary for a presidential candidate to take a position on, Barack Obama's faith of choice is not one of them.

The second point was made today by David Limbaugh:
The fact that rational people can look at Barack Obama's record, rhetoric and behavior and make their own conclusions about his faith is not controversial.  Declaring that you don't think Obama is a Christian, or that you are not sure if he is, is not a declaration of hatred or condemnation.  Christians don't hate people who are not Christians.  The Christian faith, as modeled by Jesus Christ, is one fueled by love.  The fact that the media doesn't understand that speaks volumes about their own condescending view of Christianity.  They are projecting their own hatred of Bible-believing Christians and assuming that judgemental hatred must flow both ways.  It doesn't.

The third point that needs to be made is that Barack Obama is not a Christian.  Sure, he might define himself as a Christian in the cultural sense of the word, but even in that concept he is seriously lacking.  You can declare yourself anything.  That does not make it so.  I can declare that I have a full head of hair, but I will still remain bald as an eagle.  Just because Obama has decided that as part of his image before the American people, he would benefit politically by declaring himself a Christian, does not mean that we have to join his public relations team.

Just a quick review of statements that Barack Obama has made over the years can be instructive on the issue of his Christianity.

Various denominations of Christianity may disagree about a good many theological points.  On the centrality of salvation and Christ's role in it?  Not so much.  The whole point of Christianity is that we are unable to save ourselves and that Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind.  Barack Obama doesn't understand sin by his own admission, nor does he understand salvation.


"Obama’s response when asked what his definition of sin is: 'Being out of alignment with my values.'"  That's not even close.  Sin is when you are out of alignment with God's values.  Barack Obama, self-professed Christian, doesn't understand this.  He also doesn't understand how the Christian concept of salvation works, as evidenced by these:

“This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.”

 “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”

“I’ve said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell.”

Again, Barack Obama is free to be whatever religion or non-religion that he wants to be.  He cannot, however, claim to be a Christian while rejecting all of its central tenets.  The fact that the media that spends no small amount of its time mocking, marginalizing and otherwise dehumanizing Christians while ignoring their plight at the hand of genocidal Jihadists around the world, has become so focused on proclaiming the steadfastness of Obama's Christian faith is beyond absurd.  This is clearly done to neuter Obama and make him more palatable to mainstream Americans.  "Well, he's a Christian, so if he's praising Islam, we should, too!"  "Well, he's a Christian, so he must be bound to Judeo-Christian values, and therefore, isn't a threat to our American way of life."

Every single opportunity Mr. Obama has had to elevate Islam and denigrate Christianity, he has done just that.  His internationl policies ignore the reality of the dangers of Islam while minimalizing concern for the plight of Jews and Christians being slaughtered across the globe by those Muslims.

Those are not the actions of a Christian.  And yet, the true definition of a person's Christianity is between him and Christ.  It ultimately doesn't matter what we think of his alleged faith.  It matters what Christ thinks.

There are many things that the Republican candidates can and should take a forceful stand on.  Proclaiming Obama's faux Christianity to be genuine is not one of them.

Do not allow the media to set the narrative and let's get back to the issues that matter to the American people.  Obama's faith or lack thereof is a matter that he will have to settle with his Maker, not the American people.  Let us join in prayer that he makes the right choice.

God Bless America

God Bless America
God Bless America

City On A Hill Political Observer Supports Israel

City On A Hill Political Observer Supports Israel
Let us all pray for Israel and stand against radical terrorists and anti-semites that try to destroy her!

American Grizzlies United

American Grizzlies United
City On A Hill Supports American Grizzlies United