Showing posts with label Ted Cruz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ted Cruz. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Confirmed: Ted Cruz surrounds himself with neocons

Back in February, I shared my concerns with readers about GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

Recently, my suspicions were confirmed: Ted Cruz really surrounds himself with neoconservative foreign policy advisers. ThinkProgress has the story.

The New American, an old paleo-conservative publication, ran a story in late 2015 called Ted Cruz's Closest Counselors Are Neocons.

Believing at first that the journalism was shaky, I wrote just two months ago:

It goes on to mention Chad Sweet, Victoria Coates, James Woolsey, and Elliot Abrams (although I think that Abrams is no longer on the campaign, if he ever was; in fact, RedState called him a Rubio mentor), all of which have neocon bona fides. Daily Caller has a story saying Cruz consulted Abrams, but this doesn't mean he was on the campaign.
Abrams doesn't appear to be an adviser in any official capacity, or ever have been. But there is reporting that says Cruz has consulted him. Part of me believes he's a Rand Paul 2.0 just trying to ride the waves of whatever will gain him support.
This is journalism that stretches the facts.

But according to the ThinkProgress story, Elliot Abrams is absolutely is on Ted Cruz's foreign policy team -- and he has two more alarming people on the team.

The Nation has an excellent story about Ted Cruz's dangerous foreign policy views in more detail. Peep the headline and subheadline:



Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Wall Street Daily Asks: "What Difference Would a Liberal Supreme Court Make?"

Some people said that we should vote for Ted Cruz because he will undoubtedly appoint constitutionalists to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But what if the threat from a liberal appointee is just overblown?

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Ted Cruz vs. Bernie Sanders

Ted Cruz vs. Bernie Sanders would be a nice showdown in November.

It would be the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate (Cruz) versus the furthest left Senator (Sanders). The American people would get a chance to vote for two diametrically opposed people -- not two sides of the same coin.

Ted Cruz would rhetorically smack Sanders down.

This is almost as good as Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders -- the match-up I hoped would transpire.

I'm still very concerned about Cruz's foreign policy, and the foreign policy advisers he may appoint in his cabinet, but on economic policy he is great....Ending the IRS...Ending the Department of Education...Sound Money...and more.

The opposite is the case for Sanders: I am cool with his foreign policy, but his economic policy is atrocious.

Honest thoughts on Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz looks undeniably good on paper, especially from a libertarian perspective.

He wants to shut down the IRS and 4 other federal agencies, all of which were created in the 20th century.

Ironically, I agree with a lot of his platform except for his foreign policy -- which is exactly what a lot of conservatives said about Ron Paul in 2012.

What concerns me the most is that he surrounds himself, or did surround himself, with the neocons.

As The New American reported in October 2015:
Recently, Infogram published brief but illuminating biographies of several of Cruz’s key foreign policy advisors. The information disclosed in these revelations could trouble many constitutionalists otherwise keen on the senator and who rely on him to restore the rule of law to the White House.
It goes on to mention Chad Sweet, Victoria Coates, James Woolsey, and Elliot Abrams (although I think that Abrams is no longer on the campaign, if he ever was; in fact, RedState called him a Rubio mentor), all of which have neocon bona fides. Daily Caller has a story saying Cruz consulted Abrams, but this doesn't mean he was on the campaign.

Abrams doesn't appear to be an adviser in any official capacity, or ever have been. But there is reporting that says Cruz has consulted him. Part of me believes he's a Rand Paul 2.0 just trying to ride the waves of whatever will gain him support.

This is journalism that stretches the facts.

My problem is this:  I know how the deep state works, or at least read about it, and I don't want him to be systematically presented with bad information. A former Reagan official recently wrote about the deep state:
"Many Americans regard the White House as the lair of a powerful being who can snap his fingers and make things happen. The fact of the matter is that presidents have little idea of what is transpiring in the vast cabinet departments and federal agencies that constitute “their” administration. 
Many parts of government are empires unto themselves. The “Deep State,” about which Mike Lofgren, formerly a senior member of the Congressional staff has written, is unaccountable to anyone. But even the accountable part of the government isn’t. For example, the information flows from the cabinet departments, such as defense, state, and treasury, are reported to Assistant Secretaries, who control the flow of information to the Secretaries, who inform the President. The civil service professionals can massage the information one way, the Assistant Secretaries another, and the Secretaries yet another. If the Secretaries report the information to the White House Chief of Staff, the information can be massaged yet again." ~Paul Craig Roberts || Presidential Crimes Then and Now
This is why the very presence of the neocons in a Cruz administration is so dangerous to liberty.

I'm not sure how many times Senator Paul can filibuster the commander-in-chief's foreign policy. Hopefully, the presence of the neocons awaken the sleeping Democrat Anti-war movement, which was really the anti-Bush war movement, as they've been quiet about Obama's illegal use of force. But maybe it's a dead movement, in which Cruz may have to resurrect it?

But other than that Ted Cruz, on paper, would probably be my #2 preference. I couldn't vote for him because of his carpet bombing comments.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Professing Jesus Christ isn't enough in politics

Professing Jesus Christ isn't enough in politics.

It's too low a bar to hop over, no matter how authentic the statement.

Pro-life politics aren't enough either.

What's needed is a full-orbed Christian philosophy: one that understands foreign policy, monetary policy, welfare (not welfare statism), the role of the government, the role of churches (and private organizations), and the role of individuals and families, for starters, from a Christian perspective.

(The candidate who has the most of this is Rand Paul, by the way)

Rubio, Trump, Cruz, et al. have a full-orbed something...it just ain't Christian.

Same goes for Hillary and Bernie.

I write this mainly because I saw a few Christians get excited about Marco Rubio, who, quite winsomely, confessed Christ while speaking to an atheist concerned about Rubio running for "Pastor in Chief." I was very convinced of Rubio's authentic love for the Lord.

But Rubio's hegemonic foreign policy -- his neoconservatism -- is in direct conflict with the claims and aims of the gospel. And remember, the president is Commander-in-Chief. It's one of the few explicit presidential duties delineated in the U.S. Constitution. Who he believes should be bombed is a big deal.

One day the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and Rubio's vision veers away from that tremendously.

WCF Chapter One "Of Holy Scripture" Sunday School (Sept.-Oct. 2021)

Our text for Sunday School (also "The Confession of Faith and Catechisms") Biblical Theology Bites What is "Biblical Theology...