So it's apparent just by googling what the media (lib and otherwise) thought of last night's debate. They paint a picture of Cruz being attack on all sides (which he was), some shakiness involved from the top contender (which he was not), and then they want to call this a debate. Contrary to Chris Wallace, if it's all about ad hominem attacks, that's NOT a debate, substantively anyway.
Some have said that the Donald copped out of the final debate before the Iowa Caucus to take the heat off of himself, so that attacks would work to whittle down his chances with Cruz. And of course, the moderators encouraged petty attacks towards center stage and thus showed their allegiance to starting fights to boost ratings over hosting a substantive debate, which the other candidates obliged. Nonetheless, from Cruz's opening remarks, it was obvious he was going to attempt to steer this spectacle in a more substantive direction, yes, even without the Donald.
There was the predictable back and forth with Cruz and Rubio (and Rand, kinda) on the tired amnesty argument...but facts are stubborn things, and those show that Marco was on the Democratic side of the debate during the Gang of 8, while Rand was out of the picture, silently supporting amnesty...
Even Megyn Kelly ADMITTED to Ted Cruz, of course after the debate, that the record shows he DID NOT SUPPORT legalization in the 2013 amnesty showdown...
TRS: Ted Cruz was on with Megyn Kelly right after the debate tonight and midway through the interview she brought up her question to him about his poison pill amendments in the 2013 showdown on amnesty in the Senate. What I thought was noteworthy was that Kelly admitted to Cruz that after thoroughly reviewing his record on whether or not he supported legalization, she believes his record does support his argument that his amendments were really poison pill amendments and that he never actually supported legalization.
If she had only said that during the debate, that would have been killer. But I guess she didn’t want to seem like she was supporting any candidate while moderating.
Beyond that, Cruz also had many other exceptional moments, whether that was rebuilding the military, repealing every word of Obamacare and offering real alternatives, or killing it when asked about not being endorsed by the establishment...
...as well as fearlessly and honestly confronting the Ethanol lobby (and the EPA) before Iowans...
Not being "liked" within the DC cesspool isn't a flaw, it's a badge of honor. #GOPDebate
And despite the media circus, along with all the armchairing and Trump attacks, it looks like their efforts may be backfiring as the Donald's lead fades...
TRS: While the mainstream media has been pushing the narrative that Cruz is on the downswing and Trump is cementing his front-runner status, at least one national poll has him losing 6% points over this last month where he has lobbed attacks about Cruz’s citizenship.
Here are the results from the Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP poll:
IBD: Donald Trump’s lead among Republicans dropped six points in the days leading up to Monday’s Iowa caucuses, the latest IBD/TIPP Poll shows. Support for Trump fell to 31% among registered Republicans and Republican leaners, down from 34% in the prior IBD/TIPP Poll. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz saw his support climb three points to 21%, the highest number that Cruz has achieved in five months of polling.
This comes after Trump has spent several days launching sharp attacks at Cruz, challenging his eligibility to serve as president, and attacking his character.
If you compare the poll results over the last few months, this marks the first month where Trump has lost more than 1% at all, as Ted Cruz continues growing month to month.
But you won’t hear that in the media…. I wonder why?
Probably because they're too busy stirring the pot along with the establishment in a concerted effort to prevent the most conservative candidate from UNITED conservatives, independents, libertarians and the like around shared American values to defeat Hillary or, God forbid, Bernie. It's almost as if they want to insure a third Obama term...? In order to prevent that, we need a president who will do in office what he said he'd do during the campaign, not simply a 'campaign conservative'. TED CRUZ is committed to not only keeping his promises, but also running a campaign above the personal attacks and mudslinging. Sure, that alone won't win, but it sure does go a long way towards projecting the character of a man. Combine that with his conservative RECORD, and you've got a winning combination, America. It's up to you.
TheRightScoop has done one helluva a job keeping up with the Trump/Cruz/Iowa/debate goings-on over the past 36 hours. Just take a look at what appears to be the implosion that thinking-Americans have been waiting for. It all seems to be snowballing after Cruz's Iowa Caucus poll acceleration...
This just came down the email pipe from the Cruz campaign:
January 27, 2016
Dear Donald,
We owe it to the men and women of Iowa to ensure that they hear jointly and directly from the two leading Republican candidates so that they may contrast our positions on the critical issues we face as a nation as they make their final choice leading up to Monday’s caucuses.
Accordingly, please accept this invitation to join me at an in-person, two-hour Town Hall event at Western Iowa Tech Community College in Sioux City this Saturday, January 30th at 8:00 p.m. Central. This venue is already reserved and I would propose that our campaigns evenly divide available seating/ticketing. Our teams can jointly work on the logistical details. Additionally, I propose one of the following three individuals serve as a Town Hall facilitator: Mark Levin, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. If none of these proposed individuals are acceptable to you, I suggest that instead we alternate in fielding direct questions from the audience.
I look forward to your timely response.
Ted
Wouldn’t it be great to see the two of them go mano-a-mano on Saturday night? It would be YUUUGE!
I hope Trump accepts!
Personally, I can't help but agree with Rand Paul...
Guess we'll see how the week pans out. Things can change in a heartbeat, especially in this chaotic Republican election cycle. However, it certainly appears as though folks are tiring of the circus & the sideshow has run its course. We can only hope... #CRUZ2016!
Fellow Texans, it's damn time to do something about our out-of-control, lib courts in the southern half of the state! See if you can follow this illogic. This is obscene to say the least, not to mention a repetitious mockery of justice (I'll explain the repetition below...Texans know all too well)...
RedState: Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you. A grand jury in Texas has not brought any indictments against Planned Parenthood for harvesting the organs of fetuses. No, they went after those who uncovered what Planned Parenthood was doing:
WashingtonTimes: A Texas grand jury has cleared a Planned Parenthood affiliate of accusations it sold fetal tissue for profit, and instead indicted two pro-life activists whose secret recordings ignited a national debate over the abortion provider’s activities, a state prosecutor said Monday.
The activists, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, were indicted on charges of tampering with a government record. Both posed as executives of a fake biomedical research company to tape Planned Parenthood doctors and clinic managers talking about harvesting fetal tissue, according to court documents.
Mr. Daleiden was also indicted under a law prohibiting the solicitation or sale of human organs, which suggests grand jurors thought he went too far in trying to snare Planned Parenthood.
“As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us,” Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson said in announcing the findings.
The indictments mark a stunning reversal for pro-life activists, who seized on the secret videos as evidence that Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider network, was breaking the law through the actions of some of its affiliates.
Harvesting and selling fetal tissue for profit is illegal, and a series of videos released last summer by the Center for Medical Progress, which Mr. Daleiden heads, appeared to show employees at several Planned Parenthood facilities negotiating sales.
Mr. Daleiden, in a statement Monday night, questioned how he could be charged with buying fetal tissue if Planned Parenthood wasn’t also charged with selling it. “The Center for Medical Progress uses the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press, and follows all applicable laws,” he said. “We respect the processes of the Harris County District Attorney, and note that buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well. Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see.”
Can you believe the irony here? Planned Parenthood was selling organs. A practice they stopped despite all claims they were doing absolutely nothing wrong and yet it is David Daleiden and his associate who are indicted.
A statement from Texas Governor Greg Abbott was released:
Absolutely a political hit job. As Judge Napolitano said, an overzealous prosecutor can indict 'a ham sandwich!' And we've seen the lib court system from Austin to Houston pull this unsubstantiated crap on the political right from Tom DeLay to Rick Perry, and now they're sights are set on those who EXPOSED the barbarism and callousness of the Left's sacred cow: abortion. Anything to take the focus off of their daily atrocities. We'll see how this pans out...
ALMIGHTY God, who sittest in the throne judging right; We humbly beseech thee to bless the courts of justice and the magistrates in all this land; and give unto them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, that they. may discern the truth and impartially administer the law in the fear of thee alone; through him who shall come to be our judge, thy Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.
ALMIGHTY God, who hast created man in thine own image; Grant us grace fearlessly to contend against evil, and to make no peace with oppression; and, that we may reverently use our freedom, help us to employ it in the maintenance of justice among men and nations, to the glory of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
A week out and it looks as if likely caucus goers from Iowa are choosing Cruz!
WHOTV: As the candidates make their final push across Iowa, many caucus-goers are still trying to decide which candidate they’ll support. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Ted Cruz lead their respective parties, according to a new Iowa State University/WHO-HD Iowa Caucus Poll released Monday. However, there is little room separating them from the next candidate.
On the Democratic side, 47.4 percent of likely caucus-goers surveyed said they support Clinton. That’s compared to 45 percent who said they favor Bernie Sanders. This is a significant jump from the first Iowa Caucus Poll in November, in which Sanders came in a distant second at 27.8 percent. Less than 1 percent of those surveyed in this latest poll said they’ll caucus for Martin O’Malley.
On the Republican side, 25.8 percent of likely caucus-goers are backing Cruz, while 18.9 percent say they support Donald Trump. Ben Carson came in third (13.4 percent) followed by Marco Rubio (12.3 percent), Rand Paul (6.9 percent), Jeb Bush (3.8 percent), Mike Huckabee (3.7 percent) and Carly Fiorina (1.1 percent). Rick Santorum, Chris Christie and John Kasich registered less than 1 percent. With the Iowa caucuses just days away, more than one-third (34.2 percent) of those surveyed have yet to make up their mind. And 27 percent said they’ve changed their mind over the course of the campaign. Mack Shelley, university professor and chair of political science and professor of statistics, says respondents changed their mind based on electability or after learning something about a different candidate.
Tells a different story than many of the other polls floated out there by the mainstream media. Of course, there's also the helpful reminder that we really have no clue what's going on in Iowa! Nonetheless, some have pointed out that Cruz has a very organized ground game in Iowa, whereas Trump seems to be winging it. So here's another helpful reminder:
Cruz will almost certainly win Iowa by a LOT if his supporters ignore this one message: Donald Trump, mainstream media, and most pundits look at polls and shake their head about Cruz's chances in Iowa. Either they're hiding the truth or they fail to understand the Caucus dynamic that greatly favors Cruz if his supporters don't lose hope.
Merriam-Webster Simple Definition of conservative : believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure that this word actually exists in Trump's lexicon...
CNSNews: "What is your definition of conservative?" CBS's John Dickerson, host of "Face the Nation," asked Donald Trump on Sunday.
"Well, I think it's a person that doesn't want to take overly risks. I think that's a good thing," Trump responded.
"I think it's a person that wants to -- in terms of government I'm talking about -- a person that wants to conserve, a person that wants to, in a financial sense, balance budgets, a person that feels strongly about the military. And I feel very strongly about the military.
Oh, there's more...MUCH more, including the revelation that Reagan was "not a very conservative person"...
Ya follow that? Now, if Trump wasn't Trump, he'd probably make fun of this person, lob a few insults and name-call. But since it is Trump, PERFECT! Uh, no...
"What you do...could mean the difference between our republic being saved and our republic being lost, and I'm going to explain that..."
If you look across the political landscape, as the Establishment coalesces around their anybody-but-Cruz candidate, there's OVERWHELMING SUPPORT for Ted Cruz. With the campaign cycle closing in on the primaries, more and more conservatives are awakened, thinking for themselves, even ignoring misguided 'leadership' when necessary, and stepping up to the seriousness of our situation. While one candidate seals the congealment of silliness, another shores up the substantive message for Americans with an intelligent, impassioned new endorsement over the weekend, first in Ankeny, then in Waterloo...
"'Where there is no vision, the people parish,' and that is what has happened to us... We have to go the other direction. ... Time and time again, Americans have thought, 'We're done; we are not gonna make it; there's no way out.' But let me give you the good news: This is when America is at its best. ... This is a magical place, and we've been told, 'It's over.' I testify to you today, it is not over. In nine days, you choose a new beginning for America."
Beck went on to present his endorsement of Cruz, not through a policy of praise, but through a discussion of the principles of Faith, Hope and Charity...
"The George Washington that we have all been praying for is not going to be found in the garish light of gold. The George Washington that we have been looking for will be found in the quiet yet bold service from a man who stands tirelessly for what he deeply believes: The Constitution of the United States of America. There is one candidate who finds his treasure there and in his God and in the service of them both."
TheBlaze: “I am here to announce that I am endorsing Senator Ted Cruz as the next President of the United States!” Beck said to wild cheers from crowd at Faith Bible College in Ankeny.
Beck said Cruz is the candidate who will “repoint the cornerstones” in Washington.
Beck also highlighted Cruz’s many accomplishments — from winning landmark court cases to standing on principles grounded by the U.S. Constitution.
The iconic radio talk-show host recalled a moment after he became acquainted with Cruz: “If you’re not who you say you are, I’m going to be your worst nightmare,” Beck said he told Cruz, adding that he’s watched the conservative candidate “relentlessly” and that Cruz is indeed who he says he is.
Just before Beck officially made his endorsement, he brought Cruz onstage and handed him his George Washington compass, a symbol of radio host’s pursuit of truth.
Beck said Cruz will fight for religious liberty, citizens’ Second Amendment rights and nominating Supreme Court justices who won’t tilt the balance toward liberalism.
“Iowa, I beg you,” Beck said as the state’s caucus approaches. “My children’s future depends on what you do a week from Monday.”
Beck underscored that it’s a “two-person race” with Cruz locked in a battle for votes with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.
“We have to start raising the bar,” Beck said.
We MUST return to a nation of God and Law, not of men's flawed devices...Ted Cruz is the man to lead us there.
And here's why I'm not buying the Trump lines when the TRUTH can easily be revealed in his own words to the very people who support him (h/t Craig Andresen)...
Donald Trump will not be beholden to big corporations. Are they SURE of this? ... Trump can’t be bought. ... but, again there is something which Trumpers routinely, religiously ignore. Trump is the guy that BUYS politicians and their political favors. In fact, during the very first Republican debate, Donald Trump not only admitted to buying politicians and political favors… He BRAGGED about it.
Trumpers are very fond of spouting off that Trump, unlike anyone else in the field of 2016 Republicantt 3 candidates, is a true Conservative. Oh, is he now? Really? Well, let’s see exactly how Donald Trump stacks up to the embodiment of the anathema to Conservatism…shall we? Barack Hussein Obama is a strong proponent of a single payer healthcare system. How about Trump?
Obama just loves to raise taxes but what about Trump’s proposed tax plan? How does that fit in with solid Conservatism?
Well, after reviewing Trump’s proposed tax cuts last September, the Tax Policy Center released the COST of Trump’s tax cuts which would have to include a 20% spending cut across the board in order to prevent raising our national debt by nearly $25 TRILLION dollars over the next 20 years. Those spending cuts would “amount to more than 100% of defense spending, or 82% of domestic program spending, or 41% of Medicare and Social Security spending.” ...
Obama is pro choice. Trump?
Obama says that he believes Hillary Clinton did a great job as our Secretary of State. Trump?
We all know that Obama is hell-bent on gun control and that he has a pen and a phone to prove it but where does Donald Trump, the “Trumper’s conservative” stand on the subject?
Here’s what Trump said about gun control back in 2000…”I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.” ...
Barack Obama has donated money to both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Donald J. Trump has bragged about donating money to both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the fact remains, that before 2009, when Trump was either a registered independent or a registered democrat,(he kept switching back and forth) he gave the bulk of his political donations…i.e. the buying of politicians and political favors…TO liberals.
In fact…don’t take MY word for it in regards to Trump’s liberal leanings and his liberal stance on so many key issues…take HIS word for it.
Oh, I know that Trumpers will quickly dismiss these facts and try to tell us all how Trump doesn’t really believe these things any more…that he’s “evolved” on these issues but guess who else claims an evolution in thinking or stands on given issues…
I can understand any elected official changing his or her stance on specific issues as the nature of the issues themselves change, but what we see in Trump is a quantum shift in political ideology and philosophy…not because the issues have radically changed, but because Trump’s personal goals have changed and that is political expediency based on his own narcissistic desire to rule the country. ...
This is not the truth…as I see it…this is the truth as Donald J. Trump has TOLD it HIMSELF and I have not exposed Trump as being everything BUT a Conservative… I simply allowed Trump to handle that on his own.
There's nothing to be giddy about here, folks. The man is clearly NOT a conservative, much less principled in any consistent fashion, flip-flopping all over the place on issue after issue with the political winds, while badgering those who would dare expose the truth of the matter (establishment and sycophants in tow). Is it because voters are that desperate for any semblance of leadership in the Republican Party that so many will buy into the 'just trust me' or 'I'll make America great again' broad swipes if a candidate manages to tap into a singular issue? Or have we ourselves fallen so far from the traditional American principles that embody conservatism? One thing's for certain: we buy into this populism over constitutionality at our own peril, America. But don't take my word for it...
RedState: None of the material in this video was unknown from day one.
The liberalism and crony capitalism of the Establishment did not cause people to revolt and support… a known liberal recipient of crony capitalism. So stop saying that it did. The evidence of that can be seen in the way that the Establishment is now eagerly embracing Trump in order to prevent even the possibility of a Cruz presidency – and in the way Trump is praising them in return.
ADDENDUM: We don't even have to go back that far, just last week, to witness Trump's contempt for his own voters...
RedState: Donald Trump is running a scam. We all know that. Last week, Trump acknowledged his anti-political-correctness persona is a theatrical schtick:
Trump acknowledging the act: "When I'm president, I'm a different person. I can be the most politically correct person you've ever seen."
Last week he was also bragging about the Establishment types leaving their favorite candidates and wanting to join his campaign:
He signed on with Iowa Governor Terry Branstad in supporting the Ethanol Lobby. Even without going back into his history of supporting eminent domain for personal gain, etc., etc., Trump has been the quintessential member of the Establishment. Trump owes an immense amount of money to just about every bank there is. And the Establishment has concluded that Trump is someone they can work with. Now that Ted Cruz has started linking him to the Establishment, Trump is on the defensive. He has a new ad out, called “Establishment,” which relies upon suspension of disbelief and disregard for your own lyin’ eyes to be believable:
TRANSCRIPT: TRUMP: The establishment, the media, the special interests, the lobbyists, the donors, they’re all against me. I’m self-funding my campaign. I don’t owe anybody anything. I only owe it to the American people to do a great job. They are really trying to stop me. Everybody knows it. Everybody sees it. We’re going to win. We’re going to win it for the people. We’re going to win it for out country. We’re going to make America great again.
The only way this ad is plausible is if you disregard everything Trump has said about himself and everything the Establishment has said about him. This takes us back to his statement over the weekend:
Again, these aren't my words...but they are the Donald's.
This is part of why some Republican elites support Trump more than Cruz: they think Trump is performing, Cruz really means what he says.
I said a few weeks back that it's time to expose the truth about Donald Trump. His record, his rhetoric, his leanings, nothing about them are conservative, folks. And it's past time for Americans of principle and value to come to terms with that, understand it, and find the better candidate.
Now, the National Review has assembled a symposium of conservatives to spread this message even more bluntly...
NR: Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones. Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy. (He and Bernie Sanders have shared more than funky outer-borough accents.) Since declaring his candidacy he has taken a more conservative line, yet there are great gaping holes in it.
Then from the Trump defenders, we're typically called'purists' for desiring to hold to conservative principles. And the detachment of the two, as we've seen in the Washington Cartel the majority of this century thus far and danced around/over/on by Trump, is doing such wonders? Of course not.
Never mind that, though. The Republican establishment has now embraced Trump, with the usual McConnell crew piling on, warning of a revolt should Cruz win. Then of course, the Donald responds to NationReview with his usual conflicted vitriol, followed by the RNC expelling the magazine from co-hosting the next debate...followed by more Trump boasting...
The failing @NRO National Review Magazine has just been informed by the Republican National Committee that they cannot participate in debate
TRS: I really think this is a bad development, but I understand why they think it’s necessary. National Review has long been a haven and inspiration for the conservative movement, to cut it out of a debate for the GOP primary seems like a turning away from our principles and traditional right-wing institutions. But then that’s what Trump is all about…
A day late, but definitely not a dollar short! This is well WORTH your consideration and understanding, folks...first in Iowa...
On Wednesday’s Mark Levin show, Conservatives are against crony capitalism, where statists use the power of the federal government to subsidize one industry against another. So why is Donald Trump supporting ethanol? If ethanol were a viable source of fuel the free market would have responded positively, but it hasn’t, yet the government continues to push it. Ethanol is causing enormous damage to the third world and driving food prices up. Trump’s support over ethanol shows the divide in the Republican Party between the Nixon Republicans and the Reagan Republicans. Also, Ted Cruz is a solid conservative constitutionalist yet Trump would have Americans believe that he is worse than Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump needs to take the high road instead of resorting to liberal and Nixonian tactics. Later, Senator Ted Cruz calls in to defend himself against Trump’s comments and talk about his positions on ethanol and H-1B visas.
Breitbart: Wednesday on his radio show, talk show host Mark Levin dissected what he saw as the driving force behind GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s candidacy, which was described as “agrarian national populism” and said it was akin to Richard Nixon’s candidacy in 1968, not Ronald Reagan’s of 1980.
“You and I want to run 1980,” he said. “They want to run 1968. It’s really not that more complicated. ‘Well, what do we have here – an evolution of conservatism. Ah, yes – agrarian national populism.’ The pseudo-morons, phony intellectuals who write this stuff obvious don’t know what they’re talking about or they’re very, very new to conservatism. They want to have an enormous impact. They think they’re going to control events. They will learn otherwise. I don’t pretend to control events. I just give you my opinion.”
Later in the segment, Levin said it was his view that populism was in conflict with the Constitution.
“This is this populism thing,” he said. “It’s not populism. It’s pandering. And let me tell you something else – if you believe in our constitutional system and people say they do, the Constitution is not about populism. It’s not about pluralism. It’s about liberty. You cannot have a majority of people voting whether or not you have unalienable rights. You have unalienable rights no matter what anybody says. They belong to you. They’re God-given natural rights and our Constitution recognizes that. Are we supposed to shred it? Are we supposed to give it up? Is that ideological purity, a phrase that everybody is throwing around now? No we want 1980, not 1968 – 1980, not 1968. We’re not ideological purists. We’re conservatives.”
Here's what Levin and Cruz had to discuss about this and MUCH more, further separating the Nixonians from the Reaganites...
So when it gets right down to it, do you want a Nixon? Or do you want a Reagan? That goes for Iowa, that goes for all the upcoming primary states, or ALL states for that matter, ALL citizens, the Nation on whole.
(I believe Levin made mention of Herbert Hoover as well, because, you know, he was a 'business man' too...and look how that turned out!)
ADDENDUM: More from Levin...
On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, Senator’s Orrin Hatch and Richard Burr are taking a second look at Donald Trump. Why are the establishment Republicans considering him electable over Ted Cruz? The establishment is now showing its true colors by attacking Cruz and showing support for Trump. Americans should realize that this is Nixon versus Reagan. Those who say politics is about doing whatever needs to be done to get elected are the Nixon crowd. Reagan rejected this view point and used his belief system to persuade people. Trump and other candidates would do well to borrow from Reagan’s conservative beliefs and principles instead of just using his lines. ... If Trump can talk about Ted Cruz’s loans, why not ask him about his past donations to Sen. Harry Reid, previous support of amnesty or support of Syrian refuges?
On Friday’s Mark Levin show, Americans should never forget that it’s not about the candidate it’s about the country. Donald Trump is running a very unique campaign in the way he moves from portraying himself as an outsider to attracting more inside establishment support. This type of campaign tactic is very Nixonian. It is remarkable that Trump has done this and still holds onto his supporters. However, if he doesn’t take the highroad he could lose. He is showing that he is not conservative but an agrarian populist nationalist. Trump and other candidates should stop attacking each other and talk about the issues. Conservatives should remember while Ted Cruz took a loan out from Goldman Sachs, he never gave money to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or Bill de Blasio. The establishment stopped attacking Trump and are calling him because they see he is winning and they want to influence him. Americans shouldn’t abandon their principles like politicians have, because principles brought our country to where it is today.
PPD: A letter sent on Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III contains the smoking gun in the scandal involving Hillary Clinton’s ongoing email scandal. The letter reveals Clinton had material from the U.S. government’s most secretive and highly classified programs, according to a new report from FOX News. McCullough’s letter outlines the conclusions drawn from a recent review PPD learned of and reported on back in December. But, the recent report claims that review also found specific intelligence known as “special access programs” (SAP). The SAP designation is on a level of classification beyond “top secret.”
Predictably, Hillary defaults to her throwback blame of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to take her down...
TheDC: Hillary Clinton’s top campaign spokesman believes a vast right-wing conspiracy of sorts is behind Tuesday’s explosive report about the discovery of emails on the former secretary of state’s server that are classified at levels higher than previously known.
According to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Brian Fallon, Clinton’s communications director, believes that the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, is “selectively” leaking information in coordination with Republicans.
.@brianefallon says Clinton emails werent classified when sent or received accuses Intel IG of working w/ GOP to leak selectively
"What Trump, Sarah Palin and the Governor of Iowa are saying is 'Don't vote for Cruz! We want to put a tariff on the people!'" ~ Mark Levin
Folks, are we interested at all in actually saving the republic as a whole? Or is it just each state for itself? Just with these ethanol subsidies, we are witnessing how the Establishment congeals from both ends to subsidize for votes like your average Democrat, while only one candidate chooses the conservative path towards ending such governmental dependence and is demonized for taking the principled approach.
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad urged Republicans not to vote for Cruz because of the latter's opposition to ethanol tax subsidies; most reports have ignored that his son, Eric, is a propagandist for the ethanol industry. The crony capitalists have enormous power, including in the governor's mansion. It'll be interesting to see how Republicans in Iowa react to this.
NYTimes: Candidates, welcome to Iowa. Now meet the governor’s son, who is tracking you.
Eric Branstad, a Republican like his father, Gov. Terry E. Branstad, has lurked at candidates’ events across the state, sometimes with colleagues recording video. But rather than collecting opposition research, the younger Mr. Branstad is representing Iowa’s prized ethanol industry, which faces increasing pressure to wean itself of government support.
The mandate requires that corn-based ethanol and other biofuels be blended with gasoline. Supporters say it keeps corn and soybean prices high and gas prices low. But the Environmental Protection Agency is considering reducing the volume of biofuels required in the mix. At the same time, some conservatives oppose the regulation as a federal subsidy.
And it tears your car's engine to crap faster too. But, shhh...keep shucking!
"It's getting confusing out there. There was a time when my friend Sarah agreed with Cruz & opposed ethanol subsidies." ~ Mark Levin
Oops...here's Palin's past stance, so what changed?
TheWeek: Sarah Palin may or may not be running for president, but she has already weighed in on a key issue for Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus-goers: Ethanol subsidies. She's against them. "I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be relooked at today and eliminated," Palin told RealClearPolitics. "We've got to allow the free market to dictate what's most efficient and economical for our nation's economy." Palin's call to end the subsidies, popular in Iowa because they boost the price of corn, echoes 2012 GOP candidate Tim Pawlenty's stance.
Has Trump forgotten how angry people are with the GOP establishment? Not only is he using establishment arguments to attack Ted Cruz, he’s now boasting that the establishment sees him as a candidate they can get behind and that they are contacting him left and right. This is an ad in the making for Ted Cruz.
Trump is basically saying here that he’ll do whatever it takes to get votes, even it means supporting enormous government subsidies to buy them – not a terribly conservative value.
He also criticized Cruz today for calling McConnell a liar in the Senate. So he’s against calling out lies from politicians. Another conservative value?
Hardly. Trump is encouraging federal regulators to INCREASE the amount of ethanol blended into the nation’s gasoline supply to pander to Iowans in the name of energy independence...
On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show, Donald Trump sounds like he is buying political votes by supporting ethanol. The ethanol issue is a perfect example of crony capitalism, pandering, and the environmental movement at their worst. Now, Trump wants to drive up subsidies for ethanol even higher and wants the EPA to carry out the mandates. Why would he empower the EPA to go even further than President Obama has on ethanol?
He wants to drive up ethanol subsidies HIGHER and wants the EPA to mandate it, again, something his latest endorser vehemently opposed just a few short years ago. But while in Iowa, whatever it takes for the votes, which is why Levin questions Trump:
"If somebody’s going to go into Iowa in a tough race and sellout on the ethanol issue…there’s something totally wrong with that.
That’s not conservative.
That’s not capitalism.
That’s not anti-establishment.
That’s a disgrace."
That it is, but this is the blind will, or desperation one, of the 'new' establishment to join the old for election first and foremost in the pursuit of power. Just remember, one stands alone in opposition to this lobby...
IBD: Ethanol has long been the dead man's pass of presidential politics: No one makes it through Iowa without paying homage to the corn-based fuel now a $5 billion state industry. But this year may be different.
Ted Cruz is leading the Republican polls in the Hawkeye State despite his opposition to the federal mandate requiring gasoline to be blended with 10% ethanol. He considers the mandate to be a form of corporate welfare — which it is.
If Cruz becomes the first Republican in more than a quarter-century to win the Iowa caucuses without supporting ethanol, it'll be a win for telling voters the truth. And it's about time.
