Limitless: Ted Cruz Values Freedom

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz recently visited California and was among the featured guests at the Lincoln Club of Northern California’s spring seminar. He spoke of his vision for America which stands in striking contrast with Barack Obama’s.

Senator Cruz was the youngest Solicitor General in Texas; trained at Ivy League Schools (Princeton and Harvard) on the East Coast. He has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, according to his website.

Senator Cruz introduced his wife Heidi, who worked for Condoleezza Rice when Rice served in the White House as National Security Adviser. Then, Heidi handled Western Hemisphere policy. Now, she is Vice President of Goldman Sachs in Houston, Texas.

When Senator Cruz first met Heidi’s family – missionaries who were vegetarians – he celebrated Christmas dinner with them. When asked how a vegetarian Christmas differs from Christmas in Cuba, Senator Cruz said that it’s mostly the same – except that the entree never arrives.  He talked of the Cuban tradition which includes roasting an entire pig.

It’s stories like these that endear you to Ted Cruz, who, liked any good Texan, is polite, likable and approachable.

Cruz spoke of protests of a speech he gave at U.C. Berkeley right when Facebook began. He talked about Berkeley’s passionate involvement and suggested students stay engaged and make it a better world. Unlike some on the left who criticize Cruz, he feels that people who disagree with him are not stupid or evil. He suggests approaching people with a more friendly debate demeanor –

“Pretend it is your mother. You cannot convince anyone otherwise.”

Unlike most liberals who’d like to stick a fork in the GOP, stating that the party is “done”, Cruz doesn’t think Republicans will give up –

“Just because we got clobbered in 2012 doesn’t mean we’re done”.

Senator Cruz defines the economic pie as ever-changing. It doesn’t stay stagnant with 47 percent dependent on government.  His philosophy, much like other job-creating Republicans is to have a larger economic pie by creating jobs and more taxpayers, enabling more people get a piece of the pie.

He has advice for Republicans who got caught up in the 2012 rhetoric. He believes the party focused too much on acknowledging those who have already succeeded rather than convincing those who want to achieve –

“Rather than saying ‘You built that’ – say – ‘You can build that.’ “

Cruz discussed debt to his young daughters and says that debt has gone from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in the last four years. It clearly troubles him to think that the cost of our bloated government today will be passed on to his kids to pay.

He talks about Obamacare stating that those who will be hurt most by Obamacare are those who may need help the most.  Many of them are of Hispanic origin, living in Texas. He talks of the court cases against Obama, stating that in the end we’ve got to win the argument, because the future of America’s economic health depends on it.

Cruz advocated for “opportunity conservatives”, recognizing the differences between the job creators in California he was addressing and the opportunities they have provided in the way of jobs in high growth industries –

“We are conservatives because the free market works. What you don’t see in Washington is people like those in Northern California who started companies in their garage”.

Cruz thinks the biggest lie in government is that Republicans are the party of the rich.  This is a common theme for Cruz, a free market Reaganite, who held nothing back in these comments about President Obama at the Daily Caller -

“I think President Obama is the most radical president this nation’s ever seen. And in particular, I think he is a true believer in government control of the economy and of our everyday lives. In my judgment, we are facing what I consider to be the epic battle of our generation, quite literally the battle over whether we remain a free market nation.”

Senator Cruz pivots once again to a reference of his family from Cuba. His Dad fought in Cuban revolution and was tortured in prison at age 17. He had nothing when he came to America but he got a job washing dishes, graduated from college, and started a small business.

“If we lose our freedom here where do immigrants like my dad go to? I value freedom and opportunity and that’s why I’m optimistic.”

Coming to America sounded so much like my Grandfather’s story. He came here from Italy at age 16, taking any job he could because it was better than the life he  left behind. Many of us who are grandchildren of immigrants can relate to this story – but the vast majority of us didn’t endure their parents being tortured.

It’s easy to see why Ted Cruz is so passionate about the gun debate. He values freedom and sees it potentially being compromised.  Regarding thoughts of a filibuster which would prevent a U.S. Senate vote, Cruz said yesterday in the Dallas Morning News that he felt it was egregious legislation, not worthy of a Senate vote -

“The question is not whether we have a debate. …The question is whether we should have a 50-vote or 60-vote threshold” before curbing gun rights.

Senate rules are fussy and the 60 votes required for cloture to shut off debate make the Senators even fussier.  I remember this from sitting across from U.S. Senate Parliamentarian Bob Dove when we worked for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole in the 1980′s/1990′s.

In the debate today, the Senate vote was 68-31 to bring gun control legislation to the floor for a vote.

But regardless of this lopsided margin, it’s clear that people like U.S. Senator Ted CruzU.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) understand judicial philosophy, have great passion, and know that what they do today as Senators sets precedent for the decisions of tomorrow.

There’s no doubt that Ted Cruz, at 42, has limitless potential.

Ted Cruz JBL MFL e1365703269427 Limitless: Ted Cruz Values Freedom

 

This article originally appeared at ThoughtfulWomen.org.

FLOTUS Hollywood Move A Mistake

Michelle Obama SC FLOTUS Hollywood Move a Mistake

 

We always knew that President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama had street cred in Hollywood.  The flock of actors and actresses who helped the Obamas win the White House again included BeyonceJay ZEva LongoriaLena DunhamGeorge Clooney, and Katy Perry.  That’s just some of the glitterati from Hollywood’s “A”, “B”, and “D” lists.

Like so many Thoughtful Women readers, my nose was out of joint when the First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS) introduced the Oscar for Best Picture.  Clad in her own Hollywood glitter, Michelle Obama stood before the cameras in the Diplomatic Room of the White House, flanked by her own personnel military attaches.  There she was in all her glory, as if she were nominated for Best Actress.

This was a breakthrough moment for the White House and its inhabitants, but it was an enormous mistake which diminishes the role of the First Lady.

Not even Ronald Reagan (Hollywood’s own President who headed the Screen Actor’s Guild union in 1947) presented an Oscar.  And unlike the Obamas, Reagan was real Hollywood royalty.

So why now?  Who on earth thought that it would be a good idea for the First Lady to do this?

Rumors are that Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg made a special White House pilgrimage to Washington to make the “ask” of the First Lady. Like so many in Hollywood, he helped to funnel millions to re-elect Obama.

President and Mrs. Obama have been treated by the mainstream media and Hollywood like a King and a Queen.

Is it because he is the first Black President?

Is it because his vision of government control and redistribution of wealth reminds Hollywood celebrities of all those places they threaten to flee to if they don’t get their way?

Is it because of her efforts to tackle obesity?

Whatever the case, this star-struck mutual admiration between liberals in Hollywood and a pro-government White House is nothing new. Hollywood gravitates towards Democrats and liberals and shuns Republicans and conservatives.

Take Clint Eastwood.  Rarely has there been as gifted an actor or director who has seen Hollywood’s wrath so vividly.  (For the record, Trouble With the Curve was a great movie).

In recent memory, former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President “Al-jezzera” Gore had Hollywood moguls in their back pockets.

Gore won a Grammy for “Best Spoken Performance” for An Inconvenient Truth.  (Sort of hilarious considering that Gore was known as a “stiff” throughout his career as the U.S. Senator from Tennessee).

President Clinton appeared last month at the Golden Globe Awards to introduce the great film, Lincoln.

But those appearances were made by a former President and a former Vice President.

The move by the First Lady was yet another repeat of the Obama “campaign” in action.  It was ill advised.  You had your Inauguration and your celebration.  Now its time to get to work.

What Americans want to see is serious talk about what payroll taxes do to working families, acknowledgement that we have a spending problem, pro-active ways to avoid sequester and budget turmoil, and support for small business owners who are doing their best under adverse economic circumstances to survive.

Americans don’t need more nods to the Hollywood elite. Mrs. Obama should have declined this gracious offer and focused her efforts on healing a divided America.  This stunt diminished the Office of the First Lady and makes the White House drama seem a little too much like television.

For more articles like this one, please visit ThoughtfulWomen.org

Women With Wedgies: 2013′s Renewed War On Women

Zuckerbergprotest Women With Wedgies: 2013′s Renewed War On Women

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on ThoughtfulWomen.org.

According to Wikipedia, the free online dictionary, a wedge is a triangular shaped round tool, a compound and portable inclined plane, and one of the six classical simple machines. It can be used to separate two objects or portions of an object, lift up an object, or hold an object in place.

In 2012, Barack Obama effectively used wedge issues in his hand-crafted “War on Women“ to separate women from voting for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.

Give the guy credit. He was able to fool a good cross-section of women utilizing two polarizing figures who shall not be named in this column (hint: losers in Missouri and Indiana) to drive wedges between the Republican Party and women voters.

The Obama campaign used the wedge issuebrilliantly to brainwash single and minority women into thinking the GOP would take away their reproductive rights, deny them equal pay, and perform other unsavory tasks to get a lily white, intolerant party in the power seat.

The frighteningly successful Obama taunted us even after the election during fiscal cliff negotiations where he scared people about the rich paying their fair share, Republicans removing middle class tax cuts, and Medicare being taken away from seniors.

It was great political theater but kind of unfair to Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, statesmen and gentlemen who believe a man’s word is his bond.  Now its unlikely that either will meet privately with Obama without witnesses.

Political operatives and pranksters paid by Obama’s operatives and liberal special interest groups are now using the same bullying tactics – an issues “wedgie” in 2013 – to scare women and business people from helping or even listening to Republicans.

wedgie, according to Wikipedia, occurs when a person’s underwear or other garments are wedged between the buttocks. While a wedgie can be created naturally, the term is usually associated with a prank or as a form of bullying.

So, I’m declaring it fair game in 2013 to call it exactly what it is:

The Women With Wedgies campaign has begun!

Get your panties in a bunch and join the fun!

Separating people into groups has become routine now for the Obama political machine. They effectively control the mainstream media and use that power to scare women and minorities. It’s the same tactical strategy as it was in 2012, but with a different delivery of the message using “groups” of women to pick on others.

You’ll begin to hear rhetoric from fictitious groups made up the day before. They will say that Republicans are “bad” for refusing to fund liberal special interest groups.  These groups often hide behind non-profit organizations for legitimacy. But they are controlled by the same people who control political action committees that will only back Democrats.

The most recent Women With Wedgies campaign was on display this week in California when Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was in town for a fundraiser hosted by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.

The “Raging Grannies” (pictured above) picketed Zuckerberg’s home with a thumbs-down Facebook symbol expressing their “dislike” of Zuckerberg’s support of Christie.

It’s pretty clever if you ask me and the media falls for the joke every time.

Read about it here:  Raging grannies, others picket Zuck’s political party.

So, why do these women hate Chris Christie?  Could it be because he did something fiscally responsible?

Governor Christie signed a budget in 2011 which cut proposed funding to Planned Parenthood and other liberal groups.  Democrats said he hated women, but the press covered it as New Jersey Democrats’ efforts to restore funding to public assistance programs with dollars they did not have.  This would have meant raising taxes so Governor Christie said “no”.

At the time, Governor Christie slashed $900 million, called the budget “unconstitutional” and based on “fantasy revenue found between the cushions.” He vetoed the things he thought were frivolous:

“They decided to deceive the citizens of the state with a budget that makes them look like Santa Claus in an election year,” Christie said. “How shocking, politicians deceiving and pandering to voters to get re-elected.”

Christie had one explanation for his individual reductions: “We can’t afford it.”

Read more here.

Governor Christie’s budget ax fell in 2011.  How did the “Raging Grannies” remember that?

It turns out that opposition research is twelve times easier using the Internet than it was in the old days.  Liberals masquerading as “Grannies” heard that Zuckerberg would host Christie.  It takes about a second and a half to find out the date, location and time.  After all, the mainstream media has the details when a major figure is in the area.

Given the odds against conservatives and the huge financial advantage liberal groups have, it will be harder for women who don’t drink the Obama Kool-Aid to promote their point of view and stick up for guys like Chris Christie who are doing what’s right to get their home state back on track.

But once you define the enemy, you can prepare.  Conservative women who care about putting food on the table, filling the gas tank, and helping their kids go to college might start to rally, engage and act.  You never know.

Keep your eyes peeled for more Women With Wedgies acts in 2013, when the States of New Jersey and Virginia hold their elections.  Stay tuned in 2014, when one-third of the U.S. Senate and all 435 Members of Congress will face re-election.

It promises to be good (and predictable) political theater.

 

 

Robert Bork: Biden’s Historic 1987 Mistake Impacts Obama Today

Reagan with Robert Bork 1987 198x300 Robert Bork: Biden’s Historic 1987 Mistake Impacts Obama Today

Judge Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, passed away Wednesday at age 85.

Judge Bork considered himself an “originalist” with regard to interpreting the U.S. Constitution the way our forefathers intended it.  The modern day U.S. Supreme Court Justice with a similar philosophy is Justice Antonin Scalia.

Judge Bork’s nomination was torpedoed in 1987 by two well known U.S. Senators under the advice and consent powers they hold over the nomination process.  Those two U.S. Senators were Ted Kennedy and Joseph Biden.  It seemed ridiculous at the time – Bork was undoubtedly qualified for the post.  But the Senators cited judicial temperament and overtly conservative philosophy as their reasoning for rejecting his nomination.

Judge Bork, who was senior judicial adviser this year to the presidential campaign of Gov. Mitt Romney, played a small but crucial role in the Watergate crisis as the solicitor general under President Richard M. Nixon. He carried out orders to fire a special prosecutor in what became known as “the Saturday Night Massacre.” He also handed down notable decisions from the federal appeals court bench. But it was as a symbol of the nation’s culture wars that Judge Bork made his name.

It is rare for the Senate in its constitutional “advice and consent” role to turn down a president’s Supreme Court nominee, and rarer still for that rejection to be based not on qualifications but on judicial philosophy and temperament. That turned Judge Bork’s defeat into a watershed event and his name into a verb: getting “borked” is what happens to a nominee rejected for what supporters consider political motives.

The success of the anti-Bork campaign is widely seen to have shifted the tone and emphasis of Supreme Court nominations since then, giving them an often strong political cast and making it hard, many argue, for a nominee with firmly held views ever to get confirmed.

Till the end of his life, Judge Bork argued that American judges, acting to please a liberal elite, have hijacked the struggle over national values by overstepping their role, especially in many of the most important decisions on civil rights and liberties, personal autonomy and regulation of business.

You can click on the full article in the New York Times here.

The U.S. Senate’s controversial decision to reject Judge Bork changed history and paved the way for more discussion on jurists not just on their qualifications but instead on grounds of temperament and philosophy.

Judge Douglas Ginsburg was President Reagan’s nominee after Judge Bork, but revelations that he smoked marijuana at Harvard forced him to withdraw (think about that in today’s society).  Justice Anthony Kennedy was the Reagan nominee who made it through U.S. Senate confirmation to be on the U.S. Supreme Court today.

Why is this history lesson important?

Had then-Senator Joe Biden and his colleagues approved Bork, there would be a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy right now in the wake of major decisions next year on facets of Obamacare, gay marriage, the role of race in university admissions, federal authority over voting, the cloning of human genes, cop warrants for drug searches, and whether corporations can be sued in American courts for overseas human rights abuses.

In the end, Biden’s 1987 decision places Justice Kennedy in a deciding role as the swing vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Imagine the scenario that could have developed with an opening on the U.S. Supreme Court.  There is very little doubt that a liberal Obama nominee would have sailed through a U.S. Senate which will have more Democrat votes in 2013.

Now Obama and Biden are stuck with the unintended consequence.

(This article originally appeared at ThoughtfulWomen.org.)

Photo credit – White House stock photo, Reagan and Bork, 1987.

Related posts:

  1. Paul Ryan Readies For The Biden Treatment Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at The…
  2. The Left’s Vicious Smear Campaign Against Clarence Thomas Turns 20 by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown Twenty years ago this…

Did Harry Reid Commit Political Suicide By Trashing Mitt Romney?

Harry Reid 4 SC Did Harry Reid Commit Political Suicide by Trashing Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney’s nomination on August 30th as the Republican Nominee for President of the United States was a historic moment.

No, he wasn’t the first black or the first Catholic to head a major party ticket. He was the first Mormon. He made little fanfare of the moment, though others spoke on behalf of the Latter-Day Saints community.

Some have questioned President Obama’s faith and religion over the years. I’m not sure I remember without hitting Google what Barack Obama’s faith is.

Conversely, anyone paying attention knows that Mitt Romney and his family grew up as devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also referred to as “LDS” or “Mormon.”) He has served his church in leadership roles. His good deeds are many. His philanthropy and help to others is notable.

Now the highest-ranking elected member of the LDS Church, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), has made an attempt to discredit Romney using the public forum.

Senator Reid was calculated in choosing words that would be memorable, stating that Romney “sullied” the Mormon faith and “is not the face of Mormonism.” Reid said he was simply agreeing with a blogger from the Huffington Post who was upset at recent comments made by Mr. Romney regarding individuals who rely on government services. I guess he had forgotten Mitt’s help to others as part of his leadership roles in the Church.

I thought this was peculiar. So I asked a former member of Reid’s congregation who has attended his same ward for several years.

He told me that from the Church’s standpoint, Mr. Reid has done more of a disservice to himself than to Mitt Romney.

The source, who asked to remain anonymous, said “Normally in the Church, we are encouraged that if we have a disagreement with someone, we should meet with them to work it out. Taking things public is inappropriate.”

The source went on to say that he has seen a change in the Harry that he knew in the last few years.

“It’s sad because he’s not the same person I’m used to. He used to be good at keeping politics out of the discussion. Like Mitt Romney, he has done good deeds to help people in the Church, and he knows Mitt has, as well. This is uncharacteristic of him.

“The right thing to do would be to apologize and move on. There are many people who have defended Harry over the years who feel it’s hard to justify these comments. That’s because they cannot be defended.”

Kimberley Stewart, a small business owner and member of the LDS community who now lives in Menlo Park, California, also went to the same Mormon congregation as Senator Harry Reid when she lived in Washington, D.C. She too was surprised by Senator Reid’s remarks.

“It was so far out of line. His remarks were inexcusable because he knows Mitt Romney is a good person. He looks like the bully on the playground. I’ve never seen anyone in the Mormon Church publicly act like this. It is so against the teachings of our faith.”

“Senator Reid has always been soft-spoken at church, and this seemed out of character.” Kimberley recalled the love Senator Reid has for his wife Landra, whom Kimberley remembers fondly as “a stunning dresser – a woman so beautiful, sweet, and kind. I really admired her.”

“Harry Reid knows that we have responsibilities in our Church to take care of other people. Mitt Romney has done so many kind and generous things behind the scenes,” said Stewart. “His generosity is so well known in the LDS community. He has never put wealth before his beliefs and has always taken care of others.”

She fears that Reid will do whatever it takes to support his party and that party now comes before religion to Reid. While that made her sad, Stewart acknowledged that there will be Mormons who won’t vote for Mitt Romney; but she didn’t think that Reid had necessarily swayed anyone in the LDS community.

Elayne Harmer is a Senior Executive at Remember My Service Military Productions – a company that produces historical commemoratives for soldiers when they come home from deployment.

Elayne’s family is well known in both Utah and California. Her father-in-law, John Harmer, was Lieutenant Governor of California under Ronald Reagan. Her husband, David Harmer, a successful attorney, ran for Congress and lost by a fraction in 2010 to Democrat Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-CA). Her sister, Sharlene Hawkes, was Miss America in 1984; and her father was a General Authority for the LDS Church, the equivalent of Archbishop in the Catholic Church. The Harmers have four children and live in Bountiful, Utah.

“I have known Mitt Romney for 20 years and my family has known him for longer than that. My brother-in-law was a Bishop in a congregation (ward) in Mitt’s stake (similar to a Catholic diocese.) We’ve all heard about how charitable he has been and know the human stories about his compassion. There are many low-income families in Boston that Mitt Romney has personally helped.”

“I don’t know what to think,” said Harmer, about Reid’s attack. “There are plenty of Democrats in the Mormon Church – even in my own family. It’s true the majority of Utah Mormons are Republican, but there are plenty who are more liberal. They think Reid was wrong to say what he said. Brotherhood in a shared religion should trump politics.”

I asked about Mitt Romney’s role in the Church, and Elayne elaborated.  “Mitt has held leadership positions in the Church and has a record of being a good, compassionate human being. Harry Reid hasn’t held these roles, so it seems peculiar that he’s casting stones at Mitt Romney. It would have been fine for him to disagree, but this is just not classy.”

Harmer went on to say, “I can’t imagine a fellow Christian saying these things. I’ve tried not to say bad things about Harry Reid, but the gloves are off right now. I see him as a partisan hack. If he’s going to put politics above a shared faith and claim that Mitt has sullied Mormonism just because he disagrees with him, to me that shows that he has thrown religion under the bus in favor of politics. He has betrayed us.”

“I base someone’s Christianity on their acts. I know Mitt Romney does charitable works for his fellow man. Impugning his character is just wrong and says a lot about Harry Reid’s character.”

This most recent Reid-ism isn’t the first time Harry Reid has challenged Romney’s character. On July 31st, Reid spread a false allegation he said was from a former Bain investor who said that Romney had not paid taxes for 10 years. That falsehood led to a rather curt reply from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in an interview with Nevada political journalist John Ralston.

“Of course Harry Reid wants to talk about that, because Harry Reid can’t talk about the fact that he’s presided over a Senate that hasn’t passed a budget for three years. I mean, he doesn’t want to talk about the substance of what affects real Americans’ lives. I do. And so does Mitt Romney.”

You can link to the video here.

It’s a sad statement in American politics when the highest-ranking elected Mormon uses a personal political agenda as his bully pulpit against another.

And what happens if Governor Romney becomes President Romney?  Clearly, Reid’s act against Romney won’t promote bipartisanship or solve problems.

Sadly for Reid, it’s likely that his most recent trash-talk persona will be that for which he will be most remembered.  If Harry Reid is truly a man of good character, he can save face now by apologizing to Mitt Romney. Otherwise, this act will stand as a permanent blemish on his long and “distinguished” record in Congress.

This article originally appeared at ThoughtfulWomen.org.

Photo Credit: Talk Radio News Service (Creative Commons)

 

 

Related posts:

  1. Romney: Harry Reid Should ‘Put Up Or Shut Up’ On Taxes Mitt Romney appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio program to discuss…
  2. Harry Reid Hits Romney ©2012 Nate Beeler, The Columbus Dispatch… Continue to Post…