Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Your Daily Dose of Ted

Now the only question is,..can he lose his home state and still win the primary.

No worries.
_____



Tea party dominates Texas runoffs


The victories by conservatives over established politicians return some luster to a movement lagging elsewhere


May 28, 20143:14AM ET




Texas Republicans aligned with conservative tea party favorite U.S. Senator Ted Cruz won primary runoffs on Tuesday for two of the state's most powerful posts, while U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall, 91, was ousted by a challenger about half his age.

Conservative talk radio host Dan Patrick, the tea party caucus founder in the Texas Legislature, ousted long-time incumbent David Dewhurst to claim the Republican nomination for the powerful office of lieutenant governor.

State Senator Ken Paxton, also aligned with Cruz, defeated Dan Branch, a state representative since 2002, in the race for attorney general.

The tea party victories over established politicians boosts the stature of Cruz, a possible 2016 Republican presidential contender, and returns some luster to the tea party movement. Establishment-backed conservatives have turned back tea party challengers in Republican primaries in Kentucky, North Carolina and other states as GOP party leaders have made it a priority to avoid the presence of candidates on the ballot this fall who are seen as too conservative or unsteady �- or both � to prevail in winnable races.

But there were few such fears in Texas where Republicans have dominated statewide races for more than two decades. Tea party challengers kept winning as the polls closed in Tuesday's primary election runoffs, signaling a further move to the right in the largest conservative U.S. state. It wasn't a total sweep for anti-establishment Republicans, but they won enough key races to put Texas on track to veer even further right on abortion, gun rights and spending come 2015.

The Texas runoffs were for races where no single candidate crossed the 50 percent threshold in the March 4 primary. In the race for governor in the state with a $1.4 trillion annual economy, current attorney general, Greg Abbott, easily won the March Republican primary and will face Democrat Wendy Davis, who also won in March.

Hall, the oldest serving member of the House of Representatives, lost in a Republican primary runoff election to tea party-backed challenger, John Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney. Ratcliffe painted Hall as too cozy with the Republican establishment after 34 years in office

Hall, a World War Two veteran, was first elected to the U.S. House in 1980 from congressional District 4, an area to the northeast of Dallas. He was seeking his 18th term. No Democrat is running in the district that stretches from suburban Dallas east to Louisiana and north to Oklahoma � meaning Ratcliffe will be headed to Washington after the November general election.

In an unexpected Democratic runoff, Kesha Rogers, who's allied with frequent presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, lost to Dallas dental mogul David Alameel. The Texas Democratic Party had urged voters to nominate Alameel to be its underdog to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in the November election.

Dewhurst crashing in a ball of flames, again, does the heart good. Not sure what all Dan Patrick is all about, he does sound pretty good, but bitchslapping Dewhurst is a great start, no doubt.

Right? Who loses by 30 points?
_____

After runoffs, Texas tea party stronger than ever


Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:45 am

Associated Press |




AUSTIN � Losing ground elsewhere in the U.S., the tea party emerged from Texas' primary runoffs mightier than ever in the nation's biggest conservative stronghold, sacking Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and ousting a 91-year-old congressman who was seeking one final term.


But Congressman Ralph Hall, the oldest-ever member of the U.S. House, was swept away by the latest wave of Republican insurgency that is now poised to have the muscle in the Legislature to make good on promises to push the state even further to the right on immigration, abortion, gun rights and spending.

The tea party's keystone victory was state Sen. Dan Patrick, a fiery conservative radio talk show host, who denied Dewhurst a fourth term by a 2-to-1 margin and then began his general election candidacy by unabashedly pledging to shove aside outnumbered Democrats come 2015.

"Some Democrats said they want me to be the nominee. Well they got me, and I'm coming," Patrick told supporters at his victory party in Houston.

He added: "Salute the tea party of Texas!"

Dewhurst, a multimillionaire energy businessman who has been lieutenant governor since 2003, saw his once-powerful political career in Texas end after losing to an outspent tea party underdog for the second time in as many years. He began his concession speech by noting rainy weather across the state that he said impacted turnout.

Dewhurst had said this would be his final campaign. But just like his collapse against Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate nomination in 2012, spending millions from his own fortune couldn't convince GOP voters that he was anything other than a mainstream Republican who had grown too entrenched.

Hall also promised voters that he wanted just one last term. But former U.S. Attorney John Ratcliffe, who was backed by top tea party groups, denied Hall an 18th term representing the sprawling district that stretches from suburban Dallas to the Texas-Louisiana border.

Hall, who has served 34 years in Congress, met his defeat by greeting a room in Rockwall full of family and supporters, many of whom he had known for decades. He smiled for pictures and thanked reporters for allowing him to express his gratitude to voters.

"I just got whipped and got beat, and my folks are sad, but they know that I'm not sad," said Hall, who lost by fewer than 3,000 votes. "I'm pleased to have had the opportunity."

Tuesday's Republican runoffs settled nominations for four major offices and nearly a dozen statehouse seats. In the GOP campaign for attorney general between two state legislators, tea party-backed Ken Paxton beat Dan Branch, who is a member of the House leadership team.

Sid Miller won the nod for agriculture commissioner over his former colleague in the Legislature, Tommy Merritt, whom he accused of being too moderate.

But Patrick scored the tea party's biggest win in Texas since Cruz.

The lieutenant governor presides over the state Senate. Patrick, who founded the Legislature's tea party caucus, had criticized Dewhurst as too cozy with Democrats and for not preventing Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of a 2013 measure restricting abortion, which drew national attention and launched her run for governor.

Patrick advances to the November general election against Democrat Leticia Van de Putte, a state senator from San Antonio.

Democrats welcomed the dominating tea party victories.

"The days of a pragmatic Texas Republican Party are over," said Manny Garcia, spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party. "U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Dan Patrick have driven their party so far off the ideological cliff there is no balance and common sense."

Tim Shell of the Woodlands, a 48-year-old self-employed online education businessman, said he voted for Patrick over Dewhurst.

"Dewhurst is of the old party that's been in there so long and we need change," Shell said. "It's time for patriots to stand up and say we're not going to put up with it."

Funny, he blames it on "Rainy weather", what a puzzy.. Who knew RINOs can't swim. We need to remember that.

Sen. Ted Cruz goes abroad

From Poland, the latest stop on his overseas trip, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who has forcefully tried to distance himself from potential 2016 rival Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) when it comes to foreign policy, rebuked the administration for the �consistent pattern� of �retreating from the world� as well as the �tendency to alienate and abandon our allies,� during a conference call Wednesday afternoon. Cruz spent two days in Israel, then traveled to Ukraine and Poland. He will end the trip in Estonia.

Asked the purpose of the trip, he replied that as part of his job as a senator on the Armed Services Committee, �I need to do my best to understand our national security threats. There is no substitute for meeting with leaders and seeing the situation on the ground.� The comment had the benefit of being true and also laying down a marker by which other 2016 rivals might be judged. His opening remarks were largely dictated by his itinerary, focusing on Israel, Iran and Russia.

As for Russia, Cruz said, �I have to give Putin credit. Putin has been very explicit.� He reminded the media that for Putin �the demise of the Soviet Union is the greatest geo-political disaster of the modern era.� He spoke in admiring tones about the new Ukrainian government and the students who stood up for freedom. Asked if they felt let down by the United States, Cruz diplomatically replied, �Their leaders are looking for help and solidarity wherever they can find it.� He stressed that Ukraine needs help to defend itself and that it gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for promises the United States would defend it. He stated that the goals of U.S. policy should be to help Ukraine defend itself and lessen its dependence on Russian gas and oil, and also to enact �meaningful costs, meaningful deterrence� to respond to Russian aggression. In that regard, Cruz urged we increase our export of LNG and that the Obama administration move along on 22 pending applications. Pressed by a Texas reporter whether that would include blocking Exon-Mobile energy development, he twice replied that this was something we should �look very closely at,� and he then stressed his preference for providing basic military gear and using our energy production to both aid Ukraine and undermine Putin.

This was a very subdued and serious Cruz (it was late in his day in Europe), one who was careful not to overstep his bounds by speaking for the Ukrainians but not shy about blasting the president. In aligning himself with a robust U.S. foreign policy and support for free people, he plainly was creating space between his views and Paul�s.

When it came to Israel, Cruz was emphatic about the administration�s failings. I asked if it was a mistake to give the president �room for diplomacy� with Iran and whether the Senate should act on sanctions. He responded, �Absolutely yes, and yes.� He then explained, �Perhaps the most striking aspect of my entire trip was the unanimity and was the gravity [in viewing] the Iranian threat and the insufficiency of the U.S. approach.� He continued, �Every single leader I met with� viewed the prospects of a nuclear Iran �as the gravest threat that is facing Israel and that is facing the U.S.� He declined (as he did with Ukraine) to characterize any misgivings the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have expressed about the U.S. in their meeting (good move, there) and instead referred to the prime minister�s public comments that the interim deal was �a very, very bad deal, an historic mistake.�

As for sanctions Cruz said, �We should have voted months ago. . . . There is one reason and one reason only [a sanctions bill] hasn�t passed � Harry Reid won�t allow a vote.� He called that a �serious mistake,� although he said he would go further than the Kirk-Menendez bill. He joined in that effort, he said, because he thought it was important to get bipartisan support for disapproval of the interim deal, but he would prefer to �re-impose sanctions immediately, strengthen these and lay out a clear path� for disarming Iran that would include �dismantling centrifuges and handing over its enriched uranium.� He opined that the situation was beginning to resemble North Korea, and the chief negotiator for that failed attempt to prevent a new nuclear-ready state was running the Iran negotiations (Wendy Sherman). However, he said it would be far worse if Iran got the bomb since its regime is �driven by a radical religion� and that the danger of it using a bomb was �unacceptably high.� He explained, �The best case scenario, the best case scenario� is that it would �put Iran in a position to dominate the Middle East� and set off an arms race. He was especially critical of the interim agreement�s failure to require Iran to �dismantle anything� and to permit it to continue with its IBM program. He warned that �the only purpose is to project force, to threaten us.�

On other topics regarding Israel, he declined the invitation to assert Israelis are concerned about American isolationism. He did relate at some length his visit to an IDF hospital in the Golan Heights where Israel doctors treat wounded Syrian civilians. �It is illustrative of the values that define the nation of Israel,� he observed. And on the peace process he rapped the president and secretary of state, stating that they had consistently �berated, criticized and attacked Israel while not placing blame for the refusal of the Palestinian leadership� for not engaging in good faith negotiations. He pointed out, �No one wants peace more than Israel, but there will not be lasting peace, unless and until the Palestinians recognize Israel�s right to exist as a Jewish state and renounce terrorism.�



Cruz has yet to delve deeply into stickier topics such as what precisely he finds objectionable about the president�s Syria policy or whether he would have left troops in Iraq. But if he runs for the White House, he�ll have time to craft a position on those topics. He is, however, accomplishing something few in the 2016 field of potential candidates have done: Demonstrate a real grasp of details, align himself forcefully with the GOP tradition as the pro-defense, pro-liberty party and show some deft restraint. Both in tone and in avoiding invitations to characterize other governments� privately stated views and requests, he demonstrated self-discipline, something not always associated with Cruz but, if he keeps it up, will impress voters who care about a commander in chief capable of cleaning up the mess President Obama is going to leave behind.

Ted Cruz's Clout Climbs After Big Tea Party Wins In Texas


In Texas�s GOP primary runoff election this week, there was a winner whose name wasn�t on the ballot � U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

Cruz�s influence was prevalent in the runoff primary, where Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Rep. Ralph Hall, at 91 the oldest-ever member of the U.S. House, lost to more conservative candidates.

The only candidate he officially endorsed, conservative Konni Burton, beat former state Rep. Mark Shelton with some 60 percent of the vote in the race for a state Senate seat.

Political observers are calling the smooth victory by conservatives over more so-called �establishment Republicans� in Texas a testament of Cruz�s clout, according to The Hill. Tea party candidates have not fared as well in GOP primaries in other states.

State Sen. Daniel Patrick, who will face Democrat Leticia Van de Putte in the November election for lieutenant governor, is being described as another potential Ted Cruz in terms of his unyielding conservative views and willingness to rattle political cages.

Patrick wears the Cruz crown proudly.

�The people of Texas have given us a mandate tonight,� Patrick said in his victory speech. �Tea Party folks love America. They love the Constitution. They love free markets. And they love the Second Amendment. And they love Texas. And they love the liberty that is granted to them by God and not government.�

JoAnn Fleming, executive director of Grassroots America � We the People, a conservative activist group based in East Texas, said: "Dan Patrick, he's going to make people in both parties very unhappy, just like we've seen with Senator Cruz."

Democrats are hoping to use the Cruz conservative tilt of the GOP in Texas to their advantage by portraying them as overzealous and out of touch.

�The days of a pragmatic Texas Republican Party are over,� Texas Democratic Party Communications Director Emmanuel Garcia said, according to The Hill. �U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Dan Patrick have driven their party so far off the ideological cliff there is no room balance and common-sense.�

Republican strategists, meanwhile, are looking at Cruz as a leader who is showing a new way to win elections.

�[Cruz] provided a playbook for conservative candidates to overcome the establishment,� said Texas-based GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak, who advised John Ratcliffe�s campaign, who beat Hall. �In every race, there was a Cruz dynamic.�

�He showed that if you raise enough money to be competitive, and if you run a good campaign and really mobilize the conservative base in Texas, that it can be done.�

Rep. Peter King fears Ted Cruz, Rand Paul stronger



Rep. Peter King on Wednesday said the Republican Party cannot allow Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to take over following House Majority Leader Eric Cantor�s defeat.

�We can�t allow Eric�s defeat last night allow the Ted Cruzes and the Rand Pauls to take over the party, or their disciples to take over the party,� the moderate New York Republican said on MSNBC. �Because this is not conservatism to me. Shutting down the government is not being conservative.�


King has long been harshly critical of the tea party and two of the movement�s major icons, Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky. On Wednesday, he was responding to a potential party leadership vacuum following economics professor Dave Brat�s stunning victory over Cantor in the Republican primary for Virginia�s 7th Congressional District, a result some are calling a sign of a tea party takeover of the GOP.

When asked whether immigration reform is now dead in the House following Cantor�s defeat, King responded: �My concern is that a lot of things are going to be dead and pushed to the side. I�m concerned that, for instance, that the Ted Cruz supporters, the Rand Paul supporters, are going to use this as an excuse to basically stop the government from functioning. I mean, thank God there�s no debt ceiling vote coming up.�

King said that with the defeat, Congress will likely take up very little legislation until the midterm elections in November.

He added that the government shutdown in October 2013, advocated by many in the tea party, including Cruz, was very hurtful to the party. �It alienated the country, which makes it very difficult to us to win in 2016 and for us to be a governing party,� he said.

King, who has served in Congress for more than 20 years, called Cantor a �friend.� But he said that the House majority leader was likely more removed from his constituents due to his national party obligations and that he largely ran his campaign from Washington.

He would not comment as to whether the defeated congressman would stay on as majority leader until November, but noted that he received texts and emails from members of the party who were interested in taking his place.

As for who takes over for Cantor, either before or after November, King said: �I hope it�s not the Ted Cruz types.�


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...-paul-ted-cruz-107710.html#ixzz34KcycePO

Ted Cruz celebrates Eric Cantor loss



Ted Cruz celebrated Eric Cantor�s primary loss on Tuesday night, arguing it�s a reminder that the �conservative base is alive and well� in American politics.

�Eric Cantor is a good man, but last night, voters in Virginia made D.C. listen loud and clear. This election should be a reminder to all in Congress � Republicans and Democrats alike � that the conservative base is alive and well, and the American people will hold us all accountable. Each of us needs to do what we said we would do and tell the truth,� Cruz said.

He then pledged to work with Dave Brat, who defeated Cantor, if he makes it to the House and cooperate �to pull back from the fiscal and economic cliff we are facing, and to bring back jobs, growth, and freedom in America.�

While Cruz�s criticisms of the GOP leadership have repeatedly rankled many Republicans, he has shied away from endorsing incumbents� primary challengers. He refused to comment when asked this week whether he would endorse state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R) in his runoff against vulnerable GOP Sen. Thad Cochran in Mississippi, which many believe is conservatives next opportunity to knock off a sitting Republican lawmaker.

Cruz�s disdain for what he called Cantor�s legislative �chicanery� was essentially the spark that led to last year�s 16-day government shutdown. When Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner pitched a plan to have the House vote on two separate bills � one to fund the government, the other to defund Obamacare � Cruz and House and Senate conservatives rebelled against a legislative maneuver that would have allowed Senate Democrats to ignore the attack.

Ultimately, Cruz was able to lead House conservatives to oppose Cantor and Boehner�s plan and convince Republican leaders to pass a spending bill that defunded Obamacare. Senate Democrats repeatedly stripped out the House�s attacks on Obamacare � leading to the historic government shutdown and accentuating the divide between rock-ribbed conservatives like Cruz and a more business-friendly Cantor.

Long read, so I'll just post the link, but pretty good if you GAF.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/30/140630fa_fact_toobin

"Cruz�s sincerity in these goals is beyond question. When he was solicitor general of Texas, he had a piece of advice for the lawyers on his staff. �I tried to stress to every lawyer in the office that if any lawyer from the S.G.�s office stands in front of the judge and says, �The law is X and the facts are Y,� then that judge would always, always trust that we are levelling with them and telling the truth.� He�s approached politics the same way. �Since I became a senator, a year and a half ago, I�ve kept two promises to the people of Texas,� he said. �I have endeavored to do what I said I was going to do and I have always told the truth. It says something about Washington that those are perceived as radical acts.� "

That New Yorker article is worth your time to read.

"In just over six years, Cruz argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other Texas lawyer during this period and more than all but a few lawyers in the country. In addition, he filed dozens of briefs in federal and state appeals courts. In his arguments before the high court, Cruz won five cases and lost four, but that understates the magnitude of his success. The cases he lost were rather minor; in one of them he appeared as a friend of the court. The cases he won had more drama and importance. The most notable, from 2008, began, as Cruz recounted to me, when �two teen-age girls who were walking home one night stumbled into a gang initiation and were horribly gang-raped and murdered. One of the most brutal crimes that shocked the conscience of the city of Houston. Ernesto Medell�n was one of the leaders of the gang, and he was apprehended several days later, and he confessed to it right away. His confession was one of the most chilling documents I�ve ever read, handwritten, where he describes bragging about raping these little girls. He describes showing off his bloodstained clothes. He describes keeping, as a trophy of the night, one of the little girls� Mickey Mouse watches. This was an unrepentant murderer. He was convicted, he was sentenced to death, and then the case took a strange turn.�

The World Court, which is the judicial arm of the United Nations, issued a directive to the United States to reopen the cases of Medell�n, who was Mexican, and fifty other Mexican nationals who were on death row. After their arrests, none of the defendants had been offered the consular services of the Mexican government, a right that the United States was treaty-bound to honor. In a crucial twist, the Administration of George W. Bush agreed with the World Court judgment. The Justice Department asserted that the cases, including Medell�n�s, should be reopened, because the defendants had not been granted their rights under the treaty. As both a legal and a political matter, Texas�s position looked weak. How could Abbott (and Cruz) take on a President of the United States who also happened to be a fellow-Republican and fellow-Texan? And how, in any event, could the state of Texas overrule a judgment of both the United States government and the World Court?

�In both law and politics, I think the essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative,� Cruz told me. �As Sun Tzu said, Every battle is won before it�s fought. It�s won by choosing the terrain on which it will be fought. So in litigation I tried to ask, What�s this case about? When the judge goes home and speaks to his or her grandchild, who�s in kindergarten, and the child says, �Paw-Paw, what did you do today?� And if you own those two sentences that come out of the judge�s mouth, you win the case.

�So let�s take Medell�n as an example of that,� Cruz went on. �The other side�s narrative in Medell�n was very simple and easy to understand. �Can the state of Texas flout U.S. treaty obligations, international law, the President of the United States, and the world? And, by the way, you know how those Texans are about the death penalty anyway!� That�s their narrative. That�s what the case is about. When Justice Kennedy comes home and he tells his grandson, �This case is about whether a state can ignore U.S. treaty obligations,� we lose.

�So I spent a lot of time thinking about, What�s a different narrative to explain this case? Because, as you know, just about every observer in the media and in the academy thought we didn�t have a prayer. This is a hopeless case.�

Cruz decided to change the narrative into one about the separation of powers. He refashioned the case from a fight between Texas and the United States to one between the executive branch and the legislative branch of the federal government, with Texas advocating for Congress. He argued that the President could not order Texas to reopen the cases without the specific authorization of Congress. Cruz duelled with Stephen Breyer and other skeptical Justices for well over the allotted thirty minutes. Breyer ribbed Cruz: �As I read the Constitution, it says all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state�I guess it means including Texas��the audience laughed��shall be bound thereby.�

�Certainly, Justice Breyer,� Cruz answered. �Texas, of course, does not dispute that the Constitution, laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land.� But, he went on, the President�s order, in this case, was none of these. The questioning of Cruz became so raucous that, at one point, Justice John Paul Stevens felt compelled to interject, �You said there are six reasons. . . . I really would like to hear what those reasons are without interruption from all of my colleagues.� Cruz won the case, six-to-three, with Stevens joining the Court�s conservatives. In another case, a major challenge to Texas�s 2003 electoral redistricting on the ground that it discriminated against minorities, the number of plaintiffs before the Court was so large that Cruz was allowed to file a hundred-and-twenty-three-page brief in response, well above the usual page limit. He won that case as well."

Ted Cruz: Eric Holder Should Appoint IRS Special Prosecutor or Be Impeached


June 26, 2014 2:15 PM


Attorney General Eric Holder should be impeached if he refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the targeting of tea party groups by the IRS, according to Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas).

With the IRS claiming to have lost two years of former official Lois Lerner�s emails, Cruz is headed to the floor to introduce a resolution calling for the special prosecutor.

�He�s going to say, if Attorney General Holder does not appoint a special prosecutor, he should be impeached,� a Cruz aide told National Review Online. �Eric Holder has been at the center of every big scandal in this administration . . . If he doesn�t act on this issue, it�s perfectly appropriate for him to be impeached.�

Cruz believes that Holder�s failure to appoint a special prosecutor would rise to the level of �high crimes and misdemeanors,� the constitutional standard for impeachment.

Senate Democrats, of course, are very likely to block the resolution. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) articulated the party line last week when she was asked if she was suspicious of the hard drive crash that the IRS says eradicated Lerner�s emails.

�What it convinces me [of] is that they need a new technology system at the IRS,� Pelosi told reporters. �They need to upgrade their technology, get it right, so that there�s no suspicion about what agenda anyone may have on that.�

Cruz suggested that Holder should be impeached in April, but the news that Lerner suggested that the IRS examine a speaking invitation for Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) gave rise to the latest proposal.

If weren�t for Ted Cruz and Darrell Issa, Barack Obama and Eric Holder would have buried the IRS scandal


Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:11am | posted by Jason Pye




Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) ruffled some feathers this week when he suggested that Attorney General Eric Holder should be impeached if the Justice Department didn�t appoint a special prosecutor to lead the IRS scandal investigation.

During a panel discussion on Friday�s edition of CNN Newsroom, John Avlon, editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast, took a shot at Cruz and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) by saying that the two are turning the IRS investigation into a �partisan hackathon.�

�I�m not sure Ted Cruz is often accused of having good ideas when it comes to impartial inquiries. I think probably special prosecutor is at this moment, not necessary as is calling for the impeachment of the Attorney General of the U.S.,� said Avlon. �What is necessary, though, is for the White House and Democrats to start taking this scandal seriously, and for us to try to depoliticize it.�

�Whenever Ted Cruz or Darrell Issa walks into these matters,� he continued, �it immediately turns it into a �Partisan Hackathon� as opposed to a search for the truth.�



Cruz spoke on the Senate floor on Thursday about the IRS scandal, urging the upper chamber to pass a resolution calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to launch an impartial investigation.

�Americans need a guarantee that the IRS will never be used again to target an Administration�s political enemies. It saddens me that there is not one Democrat in this body who has had the courage to stand up to his or her own party and say that using the IRS to target citizens for their political beliefs is wrong,� said Cruz in a 41-minute speech. �We need a special prosecutor with meaningful independence to make sure justice is served and our constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and privacy are protected.�

Cruz explained that the Obama administration�s investigation into the improper targeting of conservative groups is politicized, pointing out that the person the Justice Department appointed to lead the inquiry has donated to President Obama and the Democratic National Committee.

�If Attorney General Eric Holder does not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, the House should use its power to impeach him. Impeding justice is intolerable and he should not be permitted to refuse the American people a true investigation into the actions of those who used the machinery of government to target, intimate, and silence them for politically driven reasons,� he added.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) objected to the resolution, killing it. The Senate Finance Committee chairman claimed that �[t]here is nothing of value that a special prosecutor would bring to the table,� suggesting that there is no evidence of wrongdoing inside the IRS.

Will Cain of TheBlaze defended Cruz and Issa, explaining that �the only thing pushing us towards the truth in the story is partisanship,� adding that �[t]he only thing revealing the evidence is the fact there are Republicans pushing for this information.� He explained that the IRS has been less than forthcoming about the scandal, going back on its promise to cooperate with congressional investigations.

Avlon, however, suggested that the IRS, arguably the most power agency in the federal government, doesn�t have enough regulatory power. �[P]art of the problem,� he said, �is that the IRS hasn�t had the regulatory authority to deal with people who are trying to hijack non-profit status to pursue for-profit partisan aims with organizations that are supposed to be dedicated towards social welfare.�

Though Avlon said that Democrats should take the IRS scandal seriously, the notion he put forward � that the tax agency needs more power to regulate nonprofit groups � is absurd. These groups have a stated goal of educating Americans on public policy issues, running issue-based ads to accomplish that end, and hold elected officials accountable. Keeping the public informed is social welfare.

If weren�t for Republicans, including Cruz and Issa, keeping this egregious abuse of power in the spotlight, the Obama administration would have happily buried it � after all, President Obama himself has called it a �phony scandal� � and moved on.

Cruz: �Fahrenheit 451� Democrats are playing with fire

July 10, 2014 11:04 AM



By Ted Cruz

I have three questions for my Democratic colleagues in the Senate: Should Congress be able to ban books? Should Congress be able to ban films? Should Congress be able to ban groups such as the NAACP, the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club from speaking?


Cruz

The answer to all three questions should, unequivocally, be �no.� But, sadly, 46 Democrats in the U.S. Senate are supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal the free-speech provisions of the First Amendment and give Congress carte blanche power to regulate political speech.

It�s all because a group of conservative filmmakers made a documentary film in 2008 about then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that did not speak favorably about her record. Forty-five Senate Democrats are now supporting a constitutional amendment from Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico to stop Americans from showing movies like the one Citizens United created during the 2008 election.

Forty-six Senate Democrats are willing to rewrite the Constitution to take away the right of Americans to speak or create art that is critical of politicians.

Forty-six Senate Democrats are actively working to silence political criticism ahead of the next presidential election.

They are the �Fahrenheit 451� Democrats.

Never before has Congress tampered with the First Amendment.

When a similar proposal was considered in 1997, the famed liberal lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, reminded his colleagues that never before had the Bill of Rights been amended and �now is no time to start.�

I agree with Ted Kennedy. Where are the Democrats who agree with him today? Not a single one has spoken out against this. Groupthink has taken over their party.

The American Civil Liberties Union, however, has sounded the alarm. The ACLU says the Democrats� amendment would �severely limit the First Amendment and lead directly to government censorship of political speech.�

Floyd Abrams, perhaps the leading First Amendment litigator in the country and an outspoken Democrat, has, as well. He said the amendment �would limit speech that is at the heart of our First Amendment.�

Senate Democrats would like to pretend they could draw the line between what they think is �reasonable� political speech and �unreasonable� political speech. To hear the Democrats tell it, all they want to do is stop �corporate influences� from unfairly influencing the political debate.

However, The New York Times is a corporation. Should they stop penning editorials? NBC is a corporation. Should it quit airing �Saturday Night Live�?

After all, wasn�t Tina Fey influencing voters when she took on an Alaskan accent and declared �I can see Russia from my house� � something Sarah Palin never even said?

Didn�t Will Ferrell�s hilarious portrayals of President George W. Bush as childlike and confused change public opinion of our 43rd president? Wasn�t Seth Green swaying voters when he impersonated Vice President Al Gore as a dry, droning bore? Wasn�t Darrell Hammond enforcing a certain kind of perception of Bill Clinton when he presented the president as a lusty, smirking cad?

The answer is yes, yes, yes and yes. That�s what free speech gives Americans the power to do � mock, provoke, challenge and persuade. �Saturday Night Live� has a constitutional right to do so, but the Democrats� amendment would allow Congress to ban the show.

The hard-line liberal partisans who want to rewrite the Constitution to give their party a political advantage certainly do not have the same interests in mind as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

We should keep our faith in the Bill of Rights, rather than in politicians intent on preserving their power.

There will always be political speakers who someone disagrees with. Democrats should be free to disagree with films made by Citizens United, just as many Republicans disagree with films made by Mr. Gore and Michael Moore.

That�s a sign of a healthy and vibrant society. Banning films is not.

In Ray Bradbury�s novel �Fahrenheit 451,� � the temperature at which �book paper� auto-ignites � Capt. Beatty, who is the chief book burner, said, �If you don�t want a man unhappy politically, don�t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.�

That same sentiment was expressed by the Obama administration, which told the Supreme Court in Citizens United that, in its view, Congress could ban books.

When Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the Department of Justice if the Obama administration was truly arguing that, according to the Constitution, book sales could be prohibited, the Justice official replied, yes, �if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy.�

That was a shocking exchange. The government made an unabashed argument for the government being able to stop a book from being sold.

As the ACLU observed, under the Democrats� proposed amendment, Congress could ban Mrs. Clinton�s new book, �Hard Choices.�

It could ban anti-Hillary movies and pro-Hillary books alike. What then would become of our political debates? We would have only that which Congress would allow.

The Democrats, by working to shut down political speech, want to eliminate different sides of our most important questions, just as Capt. Beatty said.

Soon, Senate Democrats will hold their vote on a constitutional amendment to repeal our free-speech protections.

They are playing with fire. �Fahrenheit 451� is coming to life, and tragically, the Democrats are playing the role of the firemen who want to burn our books and silence the citizenry.

http://www.breitbart.com/ 7/11/14
Ted Cruz Calls for Impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder
Thursday on Fox News Channel's "The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said, "The Department of Justice investigation of this has been woefully negligent" as he called for impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder if he continues to ignores calls to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the IRS scandal targeting conservative group for extra scrutiny and the subsequent loss of emails requested in the congressional investigation.

�Just a couple of weeks ago I publicly called on the Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor with meaningful independence to investigate the abuse of power, he added. "And if the Attorney General doesn�t do that in my view the House of Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General. We cannot have the chief law enforcement officer of the United States openly mocking and disregarding the law in refusing to investigate the Obama administration simply for partisan reasons.�

Refreshing to see a Senator take their job seriously. And not be "wishy-washy" on the subject at hand.

Cruz is the closest to a modern-day Patrick Henry we'll likely ever see.

Seems to me that Ted Cruz,Mike Lee,Sarah Palin are making the right people mad and I'm "cool" with that.