Archive for the ‘Ted Cruz’ Category

It’s purely speculation on my part but I’m betting that Sen. Mitch McConnell will win the debate over whether the Senate will call additional witnesses to the impeachment trial. With senators like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul threatening to call a bunch of witnesses if Democrats insist on calling John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, Sen. McConnell is sitting in the power seat.

Further, Pat Toomey and Mitt Romney are talking about working out a swap with Chuck Schumer. Cruz, Graham and Paul want the trial to end quickly. That doesn’t mean they aren’t willing to play hardball with witnesses. If the Senate votes to call witnesses, expect Cruz, Graham and Paul to insist on calling Schiff, Chalupa, the Bidens and the whistleblower.

What Lindsey Graham is saying is that Democrats call witnesses at their own peril. This won’t be a John McCain-style deal where Republicans get screwed and McCain gets to act like a dealmaker. That ain’t happening this time. Check this out:

What I would say is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Biden’s connection to the Ukraine is inappropriate. There is a tsunami of evidence. So the House managers told the Senate that this is ‘baseless’ that it’s been ‘debunked,’ and I think the defense team, yesterday, made a damning indictment of what Hunter and Joe Biden allowed to happen and it’s not in America’s interest to see this happen again in the Ukraine where Hunter Biden turned it basically into an ATM machine. We’re going to go to that, and there’s media reports, people in your business, that suggested a DNC staffer [Alexandra Chalupa] met with Ukrainian officials about the 2016 election. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if we’re going to open this up to additional inquiry, we’re going to go down the road of whether it was legitimate for the President to believe there was corruption and conflicts of interest on the Biden’s part in the Ukraine. We’ll explore that, and whether or not there is any credibility to the idea that the DNC may have been working with the Ukraine.

Lindsey has figured out how to negotiate. The McCain-style negotiation is mostly groveling. The Trump-style negotiating means negotiating with a gun to the other guy’s head.. Make the other guy sweat. Make Democrats worry about whether it’s worth it.

Democrats are already worrying about voting:

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are all undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land.

If I had to bet, I wouldn’t bet against Sen. McConnell. He’s buried tons of people. Why would I think this time will be different? A month ago, he buried Nancy. Last week, he defeated Chuck Schumer 12 straight times.

Finally, I don’t think Mitch is tired of winning. Call your senator. Tell them to vote against witnesses.

This afternoon, GOP senators sent an unmistakable message to Speaker Pelosi. With Josh Hawley as the leading co-sponsor, co-sponsors “Sens. Rick Scott of Florida; Mike Braun of Indiana; Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee; Ted Cruz of Texas; Steve Daines of Montana; John Barrasso of Wyoming; Tom Cotton of Arkansas; Joni Ernst of Iowa; David Perdue of Georgia; and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma” joined with him “to introduce a resolution allowing the chamber to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump for lack of prosecution, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delays sending the case for trial.”

Next, Sen. Hawley delivered this powerful, stirring speech:

Here’s part of what Sen. Hawley said in his speech on the Senate floor:

In the real world, when a prosecutor brings a case but refuses to try it, the court has the ability and the defendant has the right, the constitutional right, I might add, to have those articles, those indictments, those charges dismissed. That is precisely the action that I am proposing today.

Here’s the heart of Sen. Hawley’s official statement:

Speaker Pelosi started this bogus impeachment by claiming President Trump was an urgent ‘threat to democracy’ who had to be removed now. But after a bipartisan vote against the articles in the House, and with the public opposed to the Democrats’ partisan games, Pelosi has changed her tune. Now she wants to prevent a Senate trial, perhaps indefinitely. But the Constitution gives the Senate sole power to adjudicate articles of impeachment, not the House. If Speaker Pelosi is afraid to try her case, the articles should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and Congress should get back to doing the people’s business.

This impeachment is a travesty. I’ve written multiple times that Democrats don’t have any proof of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democrats’ case, if you can legitimately call it that, specializes in hearsay testimony. If this was being tried in a court of law, at least 75% of the Democrats’ testimony couldn’t be admitted because it was hearsay. Sen. Cruz added this statement:

Since the start of the impeachment process, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made a mockery of our Constitution and abused impeachment for political gain. Now, they’re undermining the role of the Senate by attempting to dictate the terms of the Senate’s trial. Under our Constitution, the Senate has the sole authority to try impeachment. It is the Senate’s duty to take up these articles without delay, and to resolve them in a timely and constitutionally appropriate manner.

The Sixth Amendment requires the right to a speedy trial. Serious people question whether Pelosi’s Democrats are interested in upholding President Trump’s civil rights. Pelosi and Pelosi’s Democrat minions lied about the need to impeach President Trump on an expedited schedule. Then she decided to hold the official but flimsy articles of impeachment rather than transmit them to the Senate where a trial could be held.

Chairman Schiff told the American people that not impeaching President Trump on an expedited basis was the equivalent of arguing to just let him cheat one more time:

We were told that democracy itself hung in the balance. Now we’re being told that Speaker Pelosi wants to negotiate better terms for Senate Democrats by not transmitting the articles of impeachment. This afternoon, Josh Hawley essentially told Pelosi to butt out and let the Senate run the Senate.

Icicles must be forming in hell because Ted Cruz will meet with Alyssa Milano in Sen. Cruz’s Senate office to discuss gun control and the Bible in the spirit of I Peter 4:8. For those not familiar with that verse (I wasn’t), it says “And above all things have fervent love for one another, for ‘love will cover a multitude of sins.'” Here’s my sincere prayer that that’s the spirit that this political odd couple will meet.

This all started when Miss Milano initially tweeted “I’d love to come in and meet with you on the gun issue and many other issues that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, @tedcruz and also, 1 Peter 4:8. I’ll be in DC next week. We can live-stream the meeting so the American people can hear your bullshit 1st hand.” Cruz then replied, saying “I’d be happy to sit down & visit next week about uniting to stop gun violence & about the Constitution. If we can have a civil & positive conversation—in the spirit of 1 Peter 4:8 as you suggest—despite our political differences, that might help resolve the discord in our Nation.”

I don’t doubt Sen. Cruz’s sincerity. He’s a solid Christian man who isn’t afraid of a debate. Since he’s said that he wants to have a conversation “in the spirit of I Peter 4:8,” then I’ll accept that as Sen. Cruz’s intent. What’s interesting is Miss Milano’s reply:


Sen. Cruz’s reply might’ve surprised Miss Milano:


There’s more to Sen. Cruz’s reply, which I’d recommend everyone read, but you get the picture. Nonetheless, Miss Milano replied thusly:


This should be interesting. I’d love it if all of the cable networks covered it live. If they did, I’m betting that they’d get monstrous ratings. I’d be surprised if each network couldn’t find a major sponsor to allow them to cover the discussion/debate without interruption.

Perhaps, this odd couple might even do something positive that would help break the partisan logjam on this and other issues.

Like their national brethren, the DFL is late in expressing outrage at what’s happening at our southwest border. As is often the case, the DFL isn’t offering solutions to the crisis. They’re just offering outrage. Shame on them for being the Do-Nothing Democrat Obstructionists. The DFL’s pattern is to blame Republicans after Nancy Pelosi refuses to negotiate in good faith will the crisis build to unprecedented proportions.

There are members of the DFL’s congressional delegation who are part of the Problem Solvers Caucus. Thus far, Rep. Phillips hasn’t presented a single proposal to fix what’s happening at the border. If the DFL is only about expressing outrage, then they’re utterly worthless. If they’re only about expressing outrage because they don’t want to do what’s right because President Trump is in office, then that’s worse by a country mile.

That’s the definition of being un-American. Republicans aren’t perfect but quite a few of them have stepped forward with legislation that would fix the immigration crisis, starting with Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Dan Crenshaw.

Thus far, no Democrats have stepped forward with a solution. Ken Martin, the chair of the DFL, has offered outrage, however:


Outrage won’t fix the crisis, Little Kenny. The next time you want to express outrage, couple it with a solution. You’d be amazed how good it feels to fix a crisis. (I thought I’d tell you since you obviously never fixed a crisis before.)

Meanwhile, AOC keeps getting pounded for her lies. Chairman Martin and the DFL have a solutions crisis. They really don’t have a solutions-oriented mindset. Consequently, I haven’t seen them provide solutions to the biggest issues of the day. Whatever you think of President Trump’s personality or tweets, it’s impossible to say he hasn’t fixed lots of things in his first half-term.

The economy is cruising. The world is getting safer. We’re becoming a net exporter of energy. We now control our destiny in terms of manufacturing our own things. If Democrats actually start working with Republicans on President Trump’s immigration agenda, I don’t doubt that they’ll fix that. If, however, Democrats continue being the obstructionist jerks that they currently are, we’ll have a border crisis until we fire Democrat politicians.

Ken Martin can spin that but he can’t deny it..

Like the Democrats she leads, Speaker Pelosi keeps getting more radical by the minute. She recently told the NYTimes that she’s “worried President Trump might not step down if defeated in 2020”, saying “We have to inoculate against that, we have to be prepared for that”, urging Democrats to “win the debate that matters most to many voters inside the party: electability. ‘Own the center-left, own the mainstream.'”

First, Democrats of 2019 aren’t center-left. Which of you reading this thinks that Steven Cohen, David Cicilline or Jerry Nadler represents the mainstream of American politics? Next, there’s this:

Pelosi also said that in order to beat Trump, liberals have to play at his level, and the best way to do that is to win big, so he can’t challenge the results. “If we win by four seats, by a thousand votes each, he’s not going to respect the election,” she said. “He would poison the public mind. He would challenge each of the races. He would say you can’t seat these people.”

Thanks to the Democrats’ investigation-only agenda, Democrats won’t keep their majority in the House. According to this, Democrats can only afford to lose 17 seats if they want to keep their majority. The likelihood of that happening isn’t high. Here in Minnesota, the likelihood of flipping the Second and Third districts back to the Republicans looks quite possible. Don’t be surprised if Republicans regain House seats in California, Virginia and Pennsylvania, too. The Democrats’ majority is anything except rock-solid.

Last Wednesday, Pelosi pushed out a statement taking aim at the Trump administration in the aftermath of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, blasting the president as “immoral, unethical, corrupt and unpatriotic.”

That’s rich coming from the political party that lied to the American people that President Trump committed treason and had obstructed justice, then had to scamper after the special counsel’s grand jury determined the opposite. Now Michael Horowitz, the DOJ Inspector General, is investigating whether Democrats abused “the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” when they investigated “President Trump and associates of his 2016 campaign.”

Finally, there’s this:

It isn’t easy to get Bill Barr to smile, much less laugh. Ted Cruz accomplished those things during his questioning of Attorney Gen. Barr:

In laying things out so beautifully, Sen. Cruz demolished Speaker Pelosi’s arguments. The good news for Speaker Pelosi is that she doesn’t have to worry about getting exposed because the MSM, aka the media wing of the Democratic Party, won’t cover Sen. Cruz’s questioning of Bill Barr.

When Paul Wellstone was essentially the face of the DFL, the average citizen thought that he was wrong on the issues but that he was a generally trustworthy person. That’s how he got elected. This isn’t the ‘Party of Wellstone’ anymore.

These days, the DFL is the party of Al Franken and Keith Ellison. Sen. Franken groped a Hollywood actress. Ellison was accused by his ex-girlfriend of dragging her off the bed after grabbing her legs. That’s just here in Minnesota.

In DC, Democrat activists chased Sen. Cruz and his wife from a restaurant:

In the Senate, once the greatest deliberative body in the world, idiots like Richard Blumenthal make wild, unsubstantiated accusations in the corridors of power. He insisted that Judge Kavanaugh’s third accuser swore in an affidavit that Kavanaugh had committed rape.

Wrong:

“That affidavit is so deeply flawed and so open-ended that any good lawyer, any good defense attorney would be able to tear that apart in 30 seconds,” Dershowitz began. “It’s an embarrassment to the law that anybody would file an affidavit like that filled with hearsay, filed with ‘well I was raped but he didn’t rape me, he was there, he saw it, where was he, there are witnesses people told me, it happened ten times, I went back, I knew there were rapes going on but I went back to the party.’ This is such a deeply flawed affidavit.”

“If there were gang rapes like that, how did it not get to the police? It’s a shocking affidavit. Any lawyer who loves cross-examination would love nothing more than to examine a witness holding that affidavit in his hands and saying, ‘here, here, here.’ But Avenatti doesn’t care about that. All he cares about is getting the headline,” he continued.

Blumenthal is from a deep blue state so he can pretty much say anything and get away with it. That’s what he did in this instance. The party of Wellstone, Humphrey and Moynihan wouldn’t have pulled the stunts that the party of Schumer, Hirono and Gillibrand have pulled.

It isn’t that Democrats don’t have solutions. It’s that Democrats aren’t interested in the truth or justice.

Sen. Hirono, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Schumer have each insisted that, because Judge Kavanaugh isn’t involved in a criminal or civil trial, he isn’t entitled to the presumption of innocence. Most lefty pundits have accepted that as Gospel fact. I don’t accept that as Gospel fact or anything like it. In fact, I dispute it vehemently.

The first question that the outrageous left hasn’t answered is straightforward: at what point does a person lose the presumption of innocence? Do we really want to live in a society where uncorroborated accusations were enough to destroy a person’s life? Right now, the Hate-Filled Left is targeting Brett Kavanaugh but let’s suppose that he withdraws his nomination. There’s a decent possibility that Amy Coney-Barrett would be President Trump’s next nominee. Isn’t it virtually guaranteed that the Hate-Filled Left will attack her with uncorroborated accusations?

The Hate-Filled Left is parading out one woman after another with stories that can’t be verified to prevent a judicial conservative from being confirmed for the Supreme Court. They’ll certainly keep doing that until President Trump nominates another Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.

The ruthless lefties don’t just think conservatives are wrong. They think we’re evil. Don’t believe me? Check this out:

Bill O’Reilly nails it in this interview with Wayne Allen Root:

Without question, the Democrats have a script they’re following on SCOTUS nominees. They’ve been doing that since Ted Kennedy lied through his teeth about Robert Bork. The only difference is that today’s Democrats would make Ted Kennedy look mild.

That should frighten everyone who cares about civil rights.

Is Doug Jones toast in Alabama? While it’s too early to answer that question affirmatively, it isn’t too early to say that Donald Trump’s statements about Jones didn’t help Jones’ campaign. Specifically, President Trump said “We don’t need a liberal person in there, a Democrat, Jones. I’ve looked at his record. It’s terrible on crime. It’s terrible on the border. It’s terrible on military. I can tell you for a fact we do not need somebody who’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad for the military, bad for the Second Amendment.”

That’s a pretty good signal to Alabama Republicans to stop thinking about staying home or voting for Doug Jones. That’s a good start but it isn’t enough by itself to defeat Jones. What this represents, though, is a turning point. Moore has to focus his campaign on bread-and-butter conservative issues like the Second Amendment, being pro-life and cutting taxes.

Jones has done better-than-expected thus far because it’s been a personality-driven race. It hasn’t been about Jones’ support for partial-birth abortion and gun control. Jones peddled the notion that he’s a moderate. Appearing on Outnumbered today, Guy Benson blew that storyline to smithereens:

If Moore can convince enough Alabama Republicans to turn out, he’ll defeat Jones. I’ve thought from the start that Jones’ support was more about trying to convince Moore to drop out than it was about supporting Jones. It’ll be interesting to see how Alabama voters react to Trump’s criticism of Jones.
Guy wasn’t finished beating up the Democrats:

Here’s his exchange with Zac Petkanas:

GB: I understand why you’d be on a high horse, morally, about this because sometimes there are very bright distinctions when it comes to politics. But I would challenge you — maybe not directly, but a lot of Democrats — if Bill Clinton were up for election again…let’s say he ran for president and were the nominee in 2020. He was credibly accused of forcible rape. Would they vote for him over a Ted Cruz? I think history shows the answer is ‘yes.’
ZP: Look, I was 15 years old when Bill Clinton left office. That’s the age when Roy Moore goes after most of his girls…
GB: That’s a fair shot…
ZP: So I can’t speak to that, however I…
GB: Would you vote for Bill Clinton if he ran again?
ZP: I think that all of these women need to be believed, and that we need to hold everybody accountable, whether it’s Al Franken or whether it’s John Conyers, or whether it’s Bill Clinton, or whether it’s Donald Trump.
GB: So you wouldn’t vote for Bill Clinton for president against Ted Cruz?
ZP: Would you vote for Donald Trump?
GB: I didn’t. Your question. Back to you.

As you saw in the video, Guy’s final reply all but officially finished that debate.

One of my pet peeves is watching people use euphemisms that don’t fit the situation. It isn’t a major thing, especially considering the crisis that’s striking southeast Texas. Still, it’s a point worth making. Repeatedly, I’ve heard Sen. Cruz and other public officials use the term ordinary people in describing acts of ‘committing’ incredible acts of heroism.

I’ll first say that this isn’t a criticism of Sen. Cruz. In many ways, the people committing acts of heroism have unassuming, low-key personalities. They don’t seek the spotlight but they gravitate towards helping people. Some people, though, are part of organizations that do incredible things. One of the organizations fitting that description is Samaritans Purse. This article highlights what they’re doing to help the people of southeast Texas.

According to the article, “One of our disaster relief units is already on the scene in Victoria, and volunteer teams have begun work. They are tarping damaged roofs, chainsawing fallen trees, and cleaning up storm debris. Faith Family Church, located at 2002 E. Mockingbird Lane, serves as our host church.”

Then there’s stories like this:

I’ve said it before but I’ll repeat it right here. There’s no other nation on earth that could do what we’re seeing happening in southeast Texas. Whether it’s Samaritans Purse sending truckloads of supplies or Bass Pro Shops contributing boats, life vests and high protein snacks for flood victims and first responders, people are doing incredible things. Whether it’s convention centers taking in literally thousands of people or Houston McDonalds telling first responders that they’re welcome to stop past any of their restaurants for a meal on the house, people are doing incredible things.

If I could wave a magic wand and make a wish come true, I’d wish that Washington, DC, would learn from this response from the ‘ordinary’ heroes working tirelessly side-by-side to provide the basics that families need. I’d love to see Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to tell the leaders of #Resistance to take a hike. I’d love to see the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus to start providing solutions rather than fighting ideological battles, then not finding a solution.

That likely won’t happen but it’s worth putting pressure on politicians to think in terms of real solutions rather than just fighting 24/7.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Al Franken’s attempt to sink Sen. Jeff Sessions’ confirmation as the 84th Attorney General of the United States failed. It failed partly because Sen. Franken is a buffoon. It failed partly because Sen. Franken essentially called Sen. Sessions a liar. Mostly, though, Sen. Franken failed because he attacked Sen. Sessions by basing his questions on an op-ed written by an attorney named Gerald Hebert. Sen. Cruz highlighted the problem with that during his time on the clock.

Sen. Cruz started by saying “It is unfortunate to see members of this body impugn the integrity of another senator with whom we’ve served for years. It is particularly unfortunate when that attack is not backed up by the facts. Sen. Franken based his attack on an op-ed by an attorney Gerald Hebert. There is an irony in relying on Mr. Hebert because, as you well know, in 1986 during your confirmation hearing, Mr. Hebert testified then and attacked you then, making false charges against you then and, indeed, I would note that, after the 1986 hearing, two days later, Mr. Hebert was forced to recant his testimony to say that he’d given false testimony and to apologize for giving false testimony and to say “I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused Mr. Sessions or this committee.”
Here’s the video of Sen. Franken accusing Sen. Sessions of lying:

Here’s the video of Sen. Cruz utterly dissecting Sen. Franken’s attacks:

Sen. Franken is a disgusting excuse for a human being. As a senator, he’s a joke. Personally, I’d rate him and Gov. Dayton as the worst senators in Minnesota’s history.

I’d finally add that Sen. Sessions will fly through confirmation. The hype surrounding Sen. Sessions’ confirmation has disappeared.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,