"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

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Ben Carson & Alveda King Are Heirs to MLK's "Dream"

Dr. Carson speaks truth and seeks to heal our nation...
Dr. Ben Carson is a wonderful, thoughtful man.  He's a brilliant surgeon and he's a great moral person.

His take on race relations in our country is a complete 180 from the community organizing Barack Obama.  Throughout Obama's presidency, he has done everything in his power to stir up animosity and to divide the country along racial lines.

Dr. Carson seeks to heal the nation's racial divide.

Also sprinkling hope and grace through the hurting racial divide is the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr--Dr. Alveda King.  She has largely focused her work on the destructive force of abortion, particularly on the black community.  She is a passionate defender of the unborn and a bastion of hope for women struggling with past abortions.
King fearlessly fights for the unborn & healing for women

Alveda King and Ben Carson are the truly the heirs of Martin Luther King, Jr's famous "dream" for healing the racial divisions of our time.  And their time has come.

It's time that America turn to leaders like Carson and King instead of grifters and racial dividers like Obama, Jarrett, Holder, Jackson and Sharpton.  They are the demonstration of servant-leadership.  They are walking examples of grace.

There is a reason why Dr. Carson's campaign uses the slogan, "Heal.  Inspire.  Revive."

Carson's Op-Ed in The Hill regarding how to remedy America's social ills puts it this way:

This calls for a new model in public policy that departs from the traditional progressive model. What I am advocating is that civil society — including the corporate sector, education community, the religious establishment and philanthropic institutions —invest in people, to empower them with tools in the form of education and character development, role models, and concrete pathways into productive and rewarding work.The dilemmas of race and entrenched, intergenerational poverty have proven intractable despite the mountains of money that have been poured into solving them over the past 50 years. Moving beyond them will require a paradigm shift from focusing on attacking the problems to creating conditions that foster opportunity and growth.
Drs. Carson and King are about inspiring the next generation to rise up and succeed rather than perpetuating the plantation mentality of the Democratic party as it seeks to enslave the black community in ever-increasing dependency on a minimal existence under the provision of government programs.  For that, both will be vilified as Uncle Toms who sold out their community.  The amount of personal attacks that they can expect from some "civil rights" activists will be obscene.  But they have the quiet courage that comes from conviction and knowing that God is with you even when your enemies surround you.

Carson and King show the way toward lifting our nation's poor out of poverty not by giving endless handouts with no incentive for industry, but with opening wide the doors of opportunity and inspiring the next generation to achieve the American dream.

For that, Drs. Carson & King are entitled to a place on the national stage for some time to come.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

ENDORSEMENT: Ted Cruz For President.

It's time to unite behind Senator Ted Cruz...
I didn't expect to endorse in the race for president this early.  There are a number of decent candidates running for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination and Iowa is still about 5 months away.  I have seen enough, however, and I am confident in endorsing Texas Senator Ted Cruz for President.  Now that doesn't mean that I will no longer say nice things about the other candidates running for president.  It does mean, however, that I will be highlighting Senator Cruz more often than the others and comparing his record with theirs to show why he is the superior candidate.

The GOP as a party typically seeks to coronate the next-in-line RINO.  Most leaders in the party are more interested in the party than principle.  And during the 1990s, I was too, but then I grew up and I realized that I was more passionate about the ideas of conservatism than I was about whether or not someone had an "R" after their name when being interviewed on television.

Just as in the day of Ronald Reagan, this party is not a conservative party, although many conservatives do loosely tether themselves to the big tent.  In fact, the establishment is more vehemently against the conservative wing of the party, be they "wacko birds" "hobbits" or "crazies" than they are the left in the media.  In fact, when a genuine conservative emerges on the national stage, the party will, at best, sit back and let the media destroy them, and at worst, contribute to the destruction.

And that says something.  Am I right, Sarah Palin?

It is also revealing that the party will ALWAYS give in to false media narratives designed not to report the news but to shape the direction of public opinion, and thus, of Washington.  The very media that hates them and attempts to destroy them daily proclaims that some moderate squish of a candidate is the biggest threat to win the election--the most and only electable GOP candidate--and the party leadership flocks to support him or her.  There's not even a moment's pause to consider whether or not the radical left that seeks to destroy it might be less than trustworthy in picking their nominee.  So, the party rushes to nominate "electable" Gerald Ford and loses, nominates "electable" Bob Dole and loses in a landslide, nominates "electable" John McCain and loses in a landslide, nominates "electable" Mitt Romney and loses in a landslide.

And yet, here we are with the party establishment swooning over the electability of Jeb! Bush as proclaimed by the media and the left (but I repeat myself.)  We can't fall for this again.  Our children's future depends on it.

The Republican Party is not passionate about principle and is driven by fear.  It is a party of reaction, submission, and retreat.  Ever fearful of being hated by the media, they accept the media framing of every issue, submitting to the losing side, and instead of advocating for their supposed principles, they apologize for them and ultimately discard them altogether in the vain hope that the left will accept them.

They.  Cannot.  Lead.

The 2014 mid-term elections were a stark reminder that even when grassroots constitutional conservatives rise up in massive numbers to elect Republican leaders to Washington, to quote the future jailbird Hillary Clinton, "What difference does it make?"

The sad reality is that the GOP leadership in DC has done absolutely nothing differently than the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are giddy with excitement over demonstrating that they can govern by surrendering every single position of the right and passing virtually the entirety of the Obama agenda.

Put simply--the Republican establishment will have to be dragged kicking and screaming toward progress on every issue that matters to common sense constitutional conservative voters.  And that will take a consistent conservative fighter.

Ted Cruz is that man.  He advocates for conservatism clearly because he believes it.  He has demonstrated a remarkable ability to avoid the trappings of power in DC that have corrupted so many other "conservatives" who arrive in DC with big plans to fight the establishment.

Pick an issue of the day and Senator Ted Cruz is leading the fight in Washington.

Defunding Obamacare?  Defunding Planned Parenthood?  Stopping Obama's executive amnesty?  Stopping the atrocious Iran deal?  Ted Cruz is leading on all of these issues while his party leadership ostracizes him and joins the other side.

There are some good folks running for president.  Rand Paul is often side-by-side with Ted Cruz on many issues.  He is, however, too cozy with Mitch McConnell, and his foreign policy is a little too filled with weak sauce for the world in which we live.

Marco Rubio often votes the right way when he's not shilling for amnesty as part of the Gang of 8 or to Spanish-speaking audiences.  But silently voting is not leading.  He is a conservative who leads from behind.  He allows Cruz, Mike Lee, and Paul to take all the heat and lead the charge while he cowers in the background in order to maintain his establishment cred.  Rubio understands that with Jeb! cratering and Christie and Kasich unlikely to take off, amnesty enthusiasts in the establishment may be enough to partner with conservatives to hand the nomination to him as the lesser evil against the anti-amnesty Cruz.

Of all of the other candidates in the race, almost all of them are inconsistently conservative on at least one issue.  That is, they are usually "severely conservative" during campaign season, but then their record or off-season interviews show their conservative fever having broken ushering in a RINO squish.  Some are big government conservatives, some are moderates who campaign as conservatives.   This applies to Huckabee, Santorum, Perry, Walker, and Fiorina.

Others don't really even pretend to be conservatives.  These folks are unsupportable even in a general election.  Jeb!, Christie, and Kasich fall into this category.

There are other pretty solid conservatives running like Dr. Carson and Governor Bobby Jindal.  The problem is that Bobby Jindal is getting lost in this large field.  He's gained no traction and seems to be heading nowhere fast.  Dr. Carson is a wonderful man, but he's not quite the fighter that Ted Cruz is.

Then there's Donald Trump.

Ted Cruz is smart enough to know that Trump's supporters are irate with Washington, with the political ruling class, with the establishment, and with the Republican party and politicians in general.  Trump is resonating because of his bold non-politician, non-PC style.  He is a force right now to be reckoned with in national politics.  Ted Cruz speaks to that same audience, albeit with a little less flare for attracting a media circus.

And as much as I love Donald Trump roasting the media and the establishment within the GOP, he fails to give a comprehensive answer for his rapidly changing views on virtually every single political issue.  Having supported Hillary 2008 and having held the liberal position on virtually every issue just a few years ago, Mr. Trump is often saying the right things but hasn't convinced me that this is anything more than just a savvy political opportunism.  When he rails against Obamacare, but then makes a side comment that single payer would work here in the US, or talks about continuing funding for Planned Parenthood, Mr. Trump reveals a Romney-esque awkwardness when it comes to conservatism.  So when he's pressed for a plan and says that he needs to remain "flexible" that sends up a gaggle of red flags as to what a Trump administration would do for America.

Ted Cruz, the consistent conservative...
Senator Ted Cruz is the real deal.  He spent years arguing against the Bush administration before the Supreme Court standing for conservatism across the board when Bush's administration slowly drifted left over 8 years.  He has stood up time and time again to the leaders in his own party--to his own detriment--because it was the right thing to do.  He stands with common sense conservatives and the constitution.  As a constitutional lawyer, Cruz is uniquely positioned to champion first, second, and fourth amendment rights.  He is also exactly the man to restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government by restoring the authority of the tenth amendment.

The Cruz campaign, although mired in the same single digit polling as many of the other candidates, has demonstrated great strength on social media and in fundraising. Ted Cruz has raised more hard money than any other GOP candidate.  And his donations are coming from everyday Americans donating an average $68.  He has donations across the board from all 50 states and over half of the zip codes in America.  That shoulds a solid ground of support and helps ensure that he will stand against crony capitalism.

When people see Ted Cruz, they are impressed.  As the debates continue and as his bus tour and campaigning continues, the Cruz campaign will slowly build.  And his success in fundraising will allow him to outlast the mass purge of candidates that will begin by the Iowa caucus at the latest.

Ted Cruz is exactly the right man for the right time. It is time for courageous conservatives to stand up to the establishment and raise up a bold colors banner of contrast with a party that has an open socialist running for their nomination.

City On A Hill Political Blog endorses Senator Ted Cruz for President of the United States.

Please visit to donate, volunteer or get more information on Ted's campaign for President.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Cruz Rising: #CruzCountry Bus Tour Video, Fundraising, & Polling Bumps

The good folks over at the Ted Cruz campaign have released a new promotional video of the senator's tour through the south since the debate. Cruz has visited South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama since the big debate. He's also reported an increase in donations to the campaign since Thursday night. (Full disclosure: I donated.) His standing in the polls has increased on several polls since the debate, putting outsiders at the top of the polls and showing Jeb Bush and the establishment candidates heading toward the bottom. The NBC poll, in particular, showed Donald Trump still leading, but Ted Cruz in second place, with Dr. Ben Carson in third and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina in 4th. This is a promising sign that the grassroots voters are finally going to put an end to the RINOcracy coronations of the next in line moderate squish. It's early in the game, folks. A lot can change. But the consistency and passion with which Senator Cruz demonstrates his commitment to conservative constitutional principles is inspiring and exactly the kind of leadership that we need.


Hillary Clinton....... What in the hell happened to those emails?

The ladies at The Viewers View are hilarious. And their take on the missing Hillary Clinton emails is better than anything I could come up with. See what the ladies have to say below"

Saturday, August 8, 2015

The Two Faces of Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina set the political world on fire the other day when she took on Chris Matthews on Hardball.   Coming off the heels of a successful debate for her, she launched into a spirited defense of conservatism and a strong foreign policy.  She was clear, concise, and passionate.  She was in a word: inspiring.

When Chris Matthews called her out for calling Hillary Clinton a liar, she didn't back down and reiterated the points that she made about the lies Hillary has made by any "standard common sense measure" on Benghazi, her emails, and her server.

Benghazi.  Emails. Server.

She then launched into a litany of Hillary's failures as Secretary of State, including that she, as Secretary of State, understood that the attack on the embassy in Benghazi was a coordinated terrorist attack--and that she knew it as it happened, and yet she continued to go lie about a YouTube video.  Matthews was speechless.  Watch below:

Then today I come across a 2013 segment from CNN, where Carly Fiorina attacks Ted Cruz for trying to defund Obamacare and labels any potential government shutdown the "Cruz-Obama" shutdown. She implied Cruz did it for name recognition and financial gain instead of actual principle. She even played a violin for poor hapless John Boehner. She feels bad for him, you see, because he has to deal with "extreme" members of his own party like Cruz.

Again, watch below:

When Carly Fiorina forcefully and eloquently articulates a conservative vision for our nation and launches into a powerful contrast with the left like she did in the Matthews segment, she is inspiring and a bright leader for America.

However, this second interview from CNN reveals a more submissive Fiorina who is willing to accept the liberal premise of the questions asked and to seek to curry favor with the media by looking reasonable. She throws the fault of the entire situation on someone like Ted Cruz instead of redefining  the issue and placing the blame where it belongs--on the permanent political class of both parties.  This shows a woman who is more likely to join the ruling class than to challenge them.

One interview does not a candidacy make, but this interview stands in stark contrast with her triumphant debate performance and reveals another face of Carly Fiorina, and a troubling one indeed.

This goes to the heart of what Ted Cruz has been hammering throughout this campaign: We need consistent conservatives, not campaign conservatives. Campaign conservatives, those folks who discover severe conservatism during campaign season only to abandon it for the rest of their career, are the reason we are in the mess that we are in. The horrifying state of our national debt began to really balloon in the final years of the George W. Bush administration. It is a time for truth and a time for a consistent conservative. Voters need to do their homework on the 10,000 candidates running for president and determine which candidate is the most consistent and the most likely to stand with the people against the ruling class. That is the person that we need to lead the fight in DC.

Carly Fiorina's fairweather conservatism, as evidenced in this interview, is not the answer. Hopefully, she realizes the folly of her ways here and reverses course.

Trump Is Wrong, But So Are Kelly And Fox News

Trump V Kelly: The Great Debate of Our Time?

In post-debate analysis, I said that Donald Trump did not self-destruct during the debate.  I thought that he damaged himself by failing to give sufficient explanation for his political reversal from liberal to conservative, but that the media failed to destroy him.

In the days following the debate, however, Mr. Trump may have begun to unravel.  His post-debate meltdown has resembled something of a schoolyard bully raging against the dying of the recess period.  With attacks on Megyn Kelly, Frank Luntz, and Charles Krauthammer, Mr. Trump has been on a tantrum of Rosie-like proportions.

He has  been endlessly tweeting about Megyn Kelly not being that bright and retweeting a comment that she's a "bimbo."  Trump also told CNN's Don Lemon that she had "blood coming out of her eyes, out of her...wherever," in a comment that many take to be implying that Ms. Kelly's combative demeanor was due to her period.

Now, these comments are not to be taken lightly.  Mr. Trump is brash and not politically correct.  But these rants from the presidential candidate are beneath the office that he seeks to hold.  They show a temperament issue with Mr. Trump that should give voters pause before supporting his candidacy.  I wouldn't say that this disqualifies Mr. Trump from the race. He has raised a number of issues that needed talking about and has really put the media in their place in this race thus far, something that most GOP candidates refuse to do.

HOWEVER, where Donald Trump's comments were inappropriate, Megyn Kelly's behavior was inexcusable.

First, if Megyn Kelly is so concerned with stopping the objectification of women and wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, she shouldn't pose for pictures like this.  That she lowers herself to photos like this demonstrates that she has very little self-respect and is a master in the art of hypocrisy.

Secondly, Ms. Kelly, along with her colleagues Chris Wallace and Bret Baier (who I normally have a great deal of respect for) obviously were following orders as good employees in order to shape the race for president.

Fox moderators took a page from Candy Crowley
It is no secret that Fox News is run by and populated with former Bush staffers and donors.  It is also widely known that the Fox folks, like most of the crony capitalists in this nation, favor amnesty.  Kelly, Wallace, and Baier allowed themselves to be puppets of the establishment hell-bent on controlling the Republican primary and crowning an acceptable nominee.

Task #1 was to destroy Donald Trump.  They didn't succeed in doing that during the debate, although his post-debate meltdown may ironically accomplish that.  In a debate with 10 people vying for speaking time, they took an astonishing 31 minutes.  They picked winners and losers.  For example, they allowed 40 minutes to pass by before allowing Ted Cruz to answer another question.  They left him out of the Iran deal and Obamacare questions entirely.  They allowed other candidates to jump into questions with each other, but when Cruz attempted to do so, he was denied.

They showered attention to Bush.  They set-up Marco Rubio and have been replaying his answers ever since.  They've talked up John Kasich.


Well, the establishment wants Jeb! Bush as the nominee.  It is looking, however, more and more unlikely that Bush will earn that nomination.  (He recently admitted that he's "going to have to earn this" in an attempt of humility.  That in itself shows how entitled this man feels to his throne. He feels the need to placate us by saying he realizes that he has to "earn" his nomination instead of just being crowned like the royalty he believes himself to be.)

So, if you are the establishment and you want to ensure that an acceptable alternative gets the nomination, what do you do?  Well, Christie is unlikely to get it.  His record in NJ is worse than most third world dictatorships. Lindsey Graham is but a blip on the radar screen. John Kasich?  Maybe.  Start talking him up and see if people buy into his bland moderation as an inspiring vessel for the presidency.  Then there's Rubio.

Marco Rubio is charismatic, young and started his national career as a tea party candidate.  Many conservatives still love the guy.  So, why would the establishment want him as the nominee?  And how did the Fox News moderators help him out?

Well, Rubio is a leading from behind conservative.  He will join many of the conservative fights on the hill, but only safely from the back of the pack.  He allows Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul to take all the slings and arrows as they lead the fight against the corruption within the GOP.

He is also an amnesty enthusiast.  He was part of the Gang of 8 amnesty push.  Did the moderators ask him about that?  No.  Why not?  Because it would draw attention to Rubio's fondness for amnesty.  Mr. Rubio has also been caught on video speaking in Spanish to audiences about how he would delay cancelling Obama's executive orders on amnesty because they are helping too many people.  In the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio sponsored a DREAM Act, and blocked 6 immigration enforcement bills.

He then came to the senate and swore up and down that the Gang of 8 bill was not amnesty.  Then to a spanish-speaking audience, he shared the following:

Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence. Rubio, responding to the concern that legalization might be delayed and therefore be subjected to the policies of future administrations: Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence. What we’re talking about here is the system of permanent residence. As for the legalization, the enormous majority of my colleagues have accepted that it has to happen and that it has to begin at the same time we begin the measures for [the border]. It is not conditional. The legalization is not conditional. [Emphasis added.]  
Even now, Mr. Rubio suggests that he "learned" from his experience with the Gang of 8 that border security must come first.  The problem with that is that when pressed by journalists on whether that means he is against amnesty for illegals here in the country already, Rubio dodges the question and just says we can't even have that conversation until the border is secured.  TRANSLATION: He still favors amnesty as he always has throughout his entire career.

So Marco Rubio may be the candidate that the establishment has to settle on in order to ensure that their nominee is pro-amnesty and for open borders.  Mr. Rubio may be a conservative.  He is also very charismatic and very bright.  He understands the changing economy and the concerns of modern America.  He's not, however,  a courageous conservative, but rather a malleable conservative.  He's shown time and time again that he's more comfortable being cozy with the establishment and not making noise.  There may have been a moment where such a candidate would be acceptable.  That time is not now.  We need a courageous and independent conservative to lead this nation.  We have not had that at the top since Reagan left the political stage and the years since have shown that the GOP is rudderless without such a leader.  The leaders in congress will not pursue a conservative agenda without a bold conservative president pushing them to.  Senator Rubio is not that man.

In that sense, by failing to ask Rubio about the Gang of 8 bill while hitting Trump on Rosie O'Donnell, the moderators tipped their hand.  By ignoring Ted Cruz and giving him questions like "Does God speak to you?" instead of letting him weigh in on important issues like border security and the Iran deal, they did their part to diminish Cruz's standing and sell conservatives on Rubio.  It was nice to hear Cruz speak about how God speaks to him through the Bible, but that was a question designed to marginalize Cruz as a religious right candidate who is unable to appeal to a broad section of the electorate.  The debate should have been run by fair-minded panelists giving candidates equal time and respect.  Instead, we had a debate run by a gaggle of Candy Crowleys, who saw their role as picking winners and losers at the behest of their media overlords.

So, while Trump may be out of line for his comments regarding Megyn Kelly, the Fox News machine has also revealed itself to be nothing more than the public relations arm of the crony capitalist GOP establishment.  Before we canonize Megyn Kelly for having mean things said about her by a real estate mogul, let's look at her role as a propaganda minister for the corrupt GOP donor class.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Winners & Losers in the GOP Debates

The two Republican debates probably won't doom anyone's campaign.  There were a lot of good moments and some awkward exchanges.  Here's the WINNERS and LOSERS list as we see it:

The Also-Rans: Fiorina & Jindal Scored, Perry Stumbled

To be honest, I didn't see all of the 5 PM debate.  From what I have seen of the debate, here are my only observations:

WINNERS--Carly Fiorina and Bobby Jindal.  They seemed poised, articulate and gutsy.  Fiorina probably will benefit the most from her showing here and the awesome tongue-lashing that she gave Chris Matthews immediately afterward.

LOSER--Rick Perry.  There may have been other losers, but everyone else just seemed "fine" to me.  Rick Perry, however, despite a thousand years as the governor of Texas and 4 years to learn how to answer questions coherently and debate on a national stage after his "oops" of 2012, is still a terrible debater.  He might give good scripted remarks, but his answers to questions are rambling, shaky and often grasping for the next word.  He comes across befuddled and unsure of himself.  Rick Perry on paper looks like a strong candidate.  In reality, he should be out before Iowa.

The Top Tier Candidates


TED CRUZ--Ted Cruz was ignored for a good 45 minutes prompting me to tweet the following:

 When he was finally allowed to speak, Cruz was articulate, forceful, and statesmanlike.  He was and is the consistently courageous conservative in this race.  His performance solidified his standing with the grassroots folks, and I would expect a modest bounce for his efforts.  We are looking for a fighter who will take on the corrupt GOP and the Democrats.  Cruz delivered.

BEN CARSON--he came across as a genuine, kind-hearted and thoughtful man.  I just kept thinking what a drastic contrast with Barack Obama.  Here is a man committed to healing racial divisions and restoring America.  Here is a man that can unite our country and stop pitting different factions against each other.  He likely did himself some good here.  Oh, and he was also funny.

MIKE HUCKABEE--the former Arkansas governor was engaging, passionate and well prepared for this debate.  He's still the big government social conservative who had his political high point in 2008, but he really surprised me with how well he performed here.  His performance might have been enough to improve his standing a bit, particularly in Iowa.

MARCO RUBIO--he was engaging, charismatic and on point.  His "I grew up paycheck to paycheck" and his joke about the Democrats' failure to yield a single candidate scored.  The problem with Rubio is still his coziness to the establishment.  He has TWICE been caught telling an audience in Spanish that he supports amnesty while simultaneously telling English-speaking audiences that he opposes it.  He also doesn't LEAD any of the important fights in the senate.  He leaves the heavy lifting to Cruz, Lee, and Paul.  He will often quietly support them behind the scenes, but he never is willing to be on the front lines against the establishment.  I fear that conservatives will fall for his candidacy and find that he governs much like the Bush dynasty.


SCOTT WALKER--he was boring.  I'm sorry, but he's boring.  He doesn't stand out.  He says the right things generally, although he was up until very recently a supporter of both amnesty and common core, but he's boring.  He was largely lost in the field.  If he can survive long enough for folks to start dropping out, he might benefit.  He was not memorable.  I would imagine his top tier status will drop a bit.

DONALD TRUMP--I don't think he self-destructed as others suggest.  I also don't think his refusal to run a third party candidacy was an issue as I posted here.  His problem, in my opinion, is that when confronted with his plethora of left-wing positions on issues up until recently, he didn't give a credible explanation for his political reversal.  He even defended his previous support for a single-payer system by saying "it would have worked here," although not now.  Conservatives love his boldness, but this debate should have many of them questioning his sincerity.  That is where he might have hurt himself.

RAND PAUL--the great defender of liberty and the bill of rights came off really annoyed and often seemed petty in his confrontations with others.  He wasn't terrible, but he seemed a little desperate for attention.  He stuck to his guns and his supporters will have a lot to love in his answers.  Not sure he won over many new supporters.  It was cool to watch him trash Christie, though.


JOHN KASICH--he is a RINO.  He gave no comfort to conservatives in believing that he shared their ideology.  When given opportunities to defend socially conservative positions or the virtue of smaller government, he largely played the moderate and refused to make the conservative case.  He will be a big government moderate.  He is not the fighter or the conservative we need.  He can also only tell us so many times that his dad was a mailman.  Yeah, well, my dad was a gym teacher and I was a fat kid, so tell me another one, governor.

CHRIS CHRISTIE--he can run, but he can't hide from his abysmal record in NJ.  He can pretend that he was a tough US Attorney on terrorism, but he nominated a Shariah Law proponent to a high NJ court, intervened in a Homeland Security case where they wanted to deport a radical Imam, and supports a Mosque at Ground Zero.  His bluster can only get him so far, because for all of his talk of "telling it like it is," he is nothing more than sound and fury signifying nothing.

JEB! BUSH--he seemed tired, uninterested, and horrified that he had to answer questions instead of just being coronated.  His response to sitting on a board that gave millions to Planned Parenthood, and to initiatives to "lessen abortion restrictions around the world" was to boast that he allowed the state of Florida to have pro-life license plates.  Okay, well I guess it is even then.  He talked about securing the border and ending sanctuary cities but doubled down on amnesty.  Of course, there wouldn't be a need for sanctuary cities if he granted amnesty, but alright.  He supported common core and yet claimed not to support federal control of schools.  He was the standard GOP mush candidate. There is a reason why the Clinton mega-donors are contributing to his campaign.

FOX NEWS--this debate was unprofessional.

The moderators, who are usually decent enough journalists, morphed into a panel of Candy Crowleys and took on a frontal assault on Donald Trump. They gave Bush way too much time and attention.  They marginalized the conservatives.  Fox News is rampant with Bush cronies and it was clear that they were given their orders to give Jeb! his spotlight.

It will be interesting to see how the candidates try to build off of their showing in this debate and how the dynamics will shift.  Will Trump begin to decline?  Will another candidate ascend?  Only time will tell.

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