Posts Tagged ‘Ted Cruz’

Ted in tats

Saturday, March 15th, 2014

Although the location of the poster says the Hilton, Senator Cruz is expected to be the keynote speaker at the Claremont Institute’s annual Winton Churchill dinner on Saturday night at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel.

That Churchill tattoo on his right arm is the perfect touch.

Take that, nagging mom.

UPDATE:
According to our sources, Ted Cruz is actually a twin brother of Chuck Norris

Venezuela: “Don’t you get weary!”

Wednesday, February 26th, 2014

Tonight at 8PM EST in Silvio Canto’s podcast, we’ll talk to Victor Triay, author PLUS US-Latin America this week, including my article, Venezuela: “Don’t you get weary!”

Photographs from Venezuela, as women silently march Wednesday in Caracas

VIDEO Ted Cruz: To Save Venezuela, Sanction Iran and Starve the Castros

Uncommon Knowledge: Ted Cruz

Thursday, March 28th, 2013

h/t Babalu & WSJ

Ted Cruz and guns

Saturday, February 23rd, 2013

Ted Cruz is in the unique position of being a Senator who’ll most likely never run for POTUS since he was born in Canada. His professional background is second to no one’s (particularly the current POTUS’s),

Before being elected, Ted received national acclaim as the Solicitor General of Texas, the State’s chief lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Serving under Attorney General Greg Abbott, Ted was the nation’s youngest Solicitor General, the longest serving Solicitor General in Texas, and the first Hispanic Solicitor General of Texas.

In private practice in Houston, Ted spent five years as a partner at one of the nation’s largest law firms, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national Appellate Litigation practice.

Ted has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court.  During Ted’s service as Solicitor General, Texas achieved an unprecedented series of landmark national victories, including successfully defending:

  • U.S. sovereignty against the UN and the World Court in Medellin v. Texas;
  • The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms;
  • The constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument;
  • The constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance;
  • The constitutionality of the Texas Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment law; and
  • The Texas congressional redistricting plan.

The National Law Journal has called Ted “a key voice” to whom “the [U.S. Supreme Court] Justices listen.”  Ted has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America, by the National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America, and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.

From 2004-09, he taught U.S. Supreme Court Litigation as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law.

Prior to becoming Solicitor General, he served as the Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign.

Ted graduated with honors from Princeton University and with high honors from Harvard Law School.  He served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court.  He was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for the Chief Justice of the United States.

Cruz has jumped into the fray:

So far he is the only senator who has dared challenge the many blatant falsehoods President Obama and many congressional Democrats have been pushing regarding guns, in particular the bogus claim that 40 percent of gun sales are done without background checks.

To add to the Dems’ outrage, Cruz is demanding that Chuck Hagel disclose the source of funds Hagel receive for speeches (particularly $200,000),

Lanny Davis is among the few democrats who agree that Hagel should make full disclosure.

Behold, the birth of Ted Cruz Derangement syndrome: IS SENATOR TED CRUZ OUR NEW MCCARTHY?

A guy who was at Harvard Law at the same time as TC had this to say,

This is only the beginning, folks.

Give ‘em hell, Ted!

UPDATE:
Linked by Extrano’s Alley. Thank you!


When did ethnicity become race?

Thursday, February 21st, 2013

When liberals want you in the minority plantation:

They’d be attacking him no matter what just because he’s a rising star from the other party, but yes, of course it’s true that a rising star who’s Latino complicates Democratic plans for a permanent majority in a way that some other Republican wouldn’t.

Listen to this incoherent rant, calling Rubio “brownface” for liking Tupac,

The motive for the attacks on Rubio is the threat he may pose as a rising star. The Dems would attack him regardless of why he appears to be a rising star. But there’s no doubt that Rubio’s ethnicity is a factor in the perception that he’s someone whose momentum needs to be slowed.”

It gets more interesting, as Ted Cruz is also under fire:

Cruz is under attack because he’s outdebating Democrats and making the likes of Chuck Hagel look bad. The Dems are used to dealing with Republicans who don’t forcefully take them on in debate or who, though willing to engage, have difficulty making well thought-out arguments (e.g., John McCain, the ipse dixit king).

However, I disagree with Paul Mirengoff when he says that

Cruz is something new in town, and the Dems don’t like it. But their problem with Cruz has no relation, not even an indirect one, to his ethnicity.

I know from experience that liberals will not accept a “minority” that doesn’t toe the victimization line.

After all, that’s their main industry.


Obama didn’t answer the 3AM call

Friday, February 8th, 2013

Remember Hillary’s old campaign ad?

Well, it rang on 9/11/12.

Obama never called back to check on Benghazi, and Panetta can’t explain why:

SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’
SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –
SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –
SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –
SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?
SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.
SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then.
SEC. PANETTA: As a former chief of staff to the president of the United States, the purpose of staff is to be able to get that kind of information, and those staff were working with us.
SEN. GRAHAM: So you think it’s a typical response of the president of the United States to make one phone call, do what you can and never call you back again and ask you, how’s it going, by the way, showing your frustration we don’t have any assets in there to help these people for over seven hours?
SEC. PANETTA: The president is well-informed about what is going on. Make no mistake about it.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, that is interesting to hear.

In fact, Panetta says he had no communication with anyone from the White House, and Hillary wasn’t answering, either:

While some thought it a joke and some thought it a farce the true meaning of the empty chair was never clearer than it was at the Benghazi hearings.

Dereliction of duty? Malfeasance? The Immaculate Massacre? You decide.