Donald Trump’s strongest opponent in the primaries could be one of his strongest allies in the Senate.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the Republican who represented Trump’s biggest obstacle to winning the GOP nomination, took to Fox News’ “Hannity” this week to declare war on the legacy of outgoing President Barack Obama and push to help Trump “drain the swamp” of Washington insiders.
But the biggest issue for the fiery GOP senator was Obama’s betrayal of one of America’s most important friends.
In the interview Thursday night with host Sean Hannity, Cruz repeated his support for limiting terms of lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate and getting rid of the current president’s “signature” program of Obamacare. Both were elements of the campaign platform Trump built on the way to November’s victory.
“It was a vigorous primary, but Donald Trump won the primary, and I’m very glad to say he won the general election,” Cruz said. “What we saw on Election Day was an incredible mandate for change. It was the American people saying ‘enough is enough.’ They’re fed up….”
But it was the Obama administration’s betrayal of Israel at the U.N. that drew the harshest fire from Cruz, and he described it in a way that should get the attention of all Americans – because it is absolutely true.
“If you look at the last several weeks, what the Obama administration has done, it’s been shameful,” he said. “And really their true colors are coming out, where, on the way out, they’ve struck out at Israel, in a way that is hateful and profoundly damaging.”
Check out the interview here.
Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>
Of course, politics can make strange bedfellows, but on the question of United States support for Israel against the Muslim fascists that surround it – and the terrorists that infiltrate it – virtually every Republican in the presidential field last year agreed.
So when the Obama administration betrayed the Jewish state by abstaining from a United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israel for settlements in disputed territories, it unified Republicans in the effort to wipe out one more element of the Obama Era.
“For decades, the United States has stood as an ally of Israel at the United Nations, against anti-Semitism. And I think Barack Obama did this because he wanted to secure his legacy. And I gotta tell you, Sean, I think he has. I think history is going to record Barack Obama and John Kerry as relentless enemies of Israel,” Cruz declared.
“The antipathy of this administration to Israel and its elected leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, is astonishing.”
Trump himself has made no secret about his feelings on the subject. Besides nominating an ambassador to Israel who strongly supports the Netanyahu government, he’s posted his own statements about Israel on social media that should have the Jewish State looking forward to Inauguration Day as much as American conservatives are.
We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but…….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016
not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016
Cruz was right about one thing. Obama’s parting shot at Israel with the Security Council vote was astonishing. Combined with Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech excoriating the country last week, it was downright shameful.
And the Democrat Party’s willingness to turn its back on a key ally is one more reason to be grateful Republican Trump is being sworn in to the presidency in two weeks.
With a Republican ally like Cruz on Capitol Hill.
Even for Democrats, this is delusional.
A party that just lost the White House in a historic upset and doesn’t control either house of Congress should be expected to be plotting a path back to power by just about any means necessary.
But with what New York Sen. Chuck Schumer declares about his expectations of President-elect Donald Trump, the guys in white jackets should be showing up shortly.
The new Senate minority leader, best known for being a camera hog in a city and a governing body full of men and women who demand constant attention, told CNN in an interview this week his party has only has only one condition for its cooperation with the Trump administration come Jan. 20.
Full and complete surrender to the Democrats’ progressive agenda — yes, those powerless Democrats.
(Schumer’s out-to-lunch position laid out for CNN may be one reason Trump fired off a tweet that called the New York Democrat a “clown” regarding the Obamacare debate.)
“The only way we’re going to work with him is if he moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues,” Schumer told CNN Tuesday. “Ninety [or] 95 percent of the time. we’ll be holding his feet to the fire and holding him accountable.”
Check out the Dana Bash interview here. The “move completely in our direction” line comes about the 1-minute mark.
Obviously, even the ferociously partisan Schumer has to know in some rational part of his brain that Donald Trump is never going to move completely in the Democrats’ “direction.” For one thing, most of the country thinks the Democrats’ direction stinks – if it didn’t, Hillary Clinton would be poised to take the oath of office in two weeks.
For another, Trump doesn’t even move in the direction of his own ostensible party. Clashes between Republicans in Congress and the Republican heading for the White House are much more likely to be the dominant stories of the Trump administration than whatever ankle-biting Democrats manage to come up with in the next couple of years.
(That could change of course if the Senate changes hands again in 2018, but given the very steep and high hill the out-of-power party has to climb in two years, that seems unlikely.)
That isn’t to say Schumer and his Democrat colleagues in the Senate are completely lacking leverage when it comes to resisting Trump.
As conservative pundit John Ziegler pointed out in a recent Mediaite column, the Senate’s filibuster rule over Supreme Court nominations still gives Democrats an edge on the one issue that brought even doctrinaire conservatives into the Trump camp during the campaign.
If Schumer plays his cards right, Ziegler wrote, the Democrats might well end up with a Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg can stomach. It’s a disturbing piece, and it’s definitely insulting to Trump’s voter base, but it’s worth reading just for the logic of the argument.
But that’s just politics as usual. The kind of hardball politics powerful men (and women) have been playing in Washington for a long time now, and will be for a long time to come.
Political fights are going to happen, but what’s definitely not going to happen is the capitulation Schumer is envisioning as the price for his cooperation.
Trump hasn’t overcome impossible odds to get to the White House by crawling or kowtowing to Democrats. He’s not going to start now.
The new Senate minority leader will be in a straitjacket first.
h/t: The Daily Caller
Maybe CNN’s Don Lemon could use the insanity defense.
For a jaw-dropping 10 minutes Wednesday night, the network anchor actually led a discussion about whether the livestreamed torture of a mentally disabled white man by a hateful group of black teenagers met the liberal definition of “evil.”
And Lemon argued that it didn’t, instead blaming the on-camera, racially motivated torture episode on a factor that should make any thinking person’s mind reel.
It was a stomach-turning vision of exactly how bereft modern American liberals really are of a moral compass.
“I don’t think it’s evil,” Lemon said in response to a panelist’s comment. “I don’t think it’s evil. I think these are young people and I think they have bad home training.
“Bad home training?” Sounds more like a casual description one would have for pets that chewed the furniture.
“I have no idea who is raising these young people, because no one I know on earth who is 17-years-old or 70-years-old would ever think of treating another person like that. You wonder, at 18-years-old, where is your parent, where is your guardian?”
Actually, what any person with the moral sensibilities of a toddler would wonder is, just how crazy are these people? And not the Chicago attackers, the CNN talking heads.
Of course, this is the same Don Lemon who kept downing alcoholic beverages on-air during CNN’s New Year’s Eve coverage until he became so intoxicated the network had to cut his mic.
Check out the anchor’s head-spinning comment about the Chicago brutality below. Lemon’s stunning statement takes place about the 3:25 mark. But the whole thing is worth watching.
— =^..^= (@La_G4ta) January 5, 2017
Let’s review this for a second.
According to Lemon’s own network, the four depraved men and women involved in the attack on Tuesday abducted their victim from a suburban Chicago neighborhood and took him to an apartment on the city’s West Side, where he was bound to a chair, gagged, and beaten – besides having part of his scalp cut off with a knife.
All of it recorded on video and made available online via Facebook Live, with the laughter of the attackers intermixed with shouts of “F*** Donald Trump” and “F*** white people.”
Two men, 18-year-old Jordan Hill, and Tesfaye Cooper, and two women, Brittany Covington, 18, and Tanishia Covington, 24, have been charged with committing a hate crime, felony aggravated kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, according to CNN.
But that’s for the legalities of the case, and the justice system will decide it as it will.
The point here is that Lemon’s segment showcased five apparently sane, educated human beings arguing over whether the calculated cruelty involved in the attack actually constituted “evil.”
“Poor home training” might lead some kids to be shoplifters, some kids to vandalize or even steal cars. But abduction and torture of another human being – a mentally retarded human being – just for the sake of amusement, and to make a Facebook video?
If that’s not evil, the word has no meaning.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, it wasn’t just Lemon and his morally bankrupt guests who were so benighted. The Washington Post headlined a column with a similar theme, “Pro-Trump narratives converge in one awful attack streamed on Facebook,” as though the worst thing about the attack (for a liberal) was that it could help the president-elect’s poll numbers in the run-up to Inauguration Day.
Conservatives have been warning for decades that an America governed by liberalism would lose its soul. One could argue that a country that countenances the murder of millions of unborn children with their dismembered body parts sold for profit had already proven that.
But to experience — and then to broadcast to the world — the pure evil of moral confusion that liberalism has fostered, one good look at the Lemon panel discussion will do it.
What happened in Chicago was evil. What happened on Lemon’s CNN show was worse.
Editor’s Note: This post has been corrected to properly identify the gender of one of the suspects.
Now, this is what a smooth transition looks like.
While President Obama spends his time planting booby traps for President-elect Donald Trump, and Chuck Schumer’s Democrats plot nasty rearguard fights in the Senate, the country’s number one cable news channel just announced how it’s going to fill the gap left by the departure of one of its biggest names.
And Fox News fans sound thrilled.
After an intense two days of internet-consuming speculation about the cable operation’s program lineup — following word that Megyn Kelly is decamping for a new, yet-to-be-ironed-out job at NBC — the “fair and balanced” network announced that rising star Tucker Carlson will be moving into Kelly’s slot in the primetime lineup.
Curiously, Carlson’s move to the 9PM ET time slot starting Monday, Jan. 9, coincides with the start of former Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren’s new show on MSNBC, just announced Thursday. Van Susteren’s new program, “For the Record,” will fill an hour starting at 6PM ET.
Carlson, 47, had just started hosting his own nightly show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” which debuted in November to barn-burning ratings. Among cable news programs, the show was second only to the venerable “The O’Reilly Factor” in the prime 25-54 demographic for the month of December, according to Fox. The show will continue under its current name, and still be broadcast from Washington, only an hour later when audience-building opportunities are greater.
What’s really interesting about this is that Kelly’s departure opened the door for a wild guessing game about which of Fox’s female hosts would be taking Kelly’s place, like Fox was some sort of Democrat outfit that required race and gender quotas to be filled. Obviously, the business-minded network put ratings performance over gender sensitivities in making the selection — a pretty good formula for success.
Meanwhile, “America’s Newsroom” co-anchor Martha MacCallum will be moving into Carlson’s 7 p.m. slot with a show called “The First 100 Days” covering the beginning of the Trump presidency. (There’s obviously a short shelf life planned there, so more announcements can’t be far off.)
In a sharp contrast to the show of presidential petulance and self-congratulatory strutting America is getting from the White House these days, with Barack Obama doing his best to string trip wires for the Trump administration, Kelly published a Twitter posting Thursday congratulating Carlson and MacCallum on their new assignments.
Congratulations to my friend @TuckerCarlson on moving to the 9p slot at Fox! This is a great decision by FNC & I will be cheering him on!
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 5, 2017
And congrats to the always classy @marthamaccallum on moving to the 7p! She’s amazing & will shine at any hour.
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 5, 2017
Granted, Kelly made her move more or less of her own volition, while Obama had to watch his favored successor go down in defeat, but considering Kelly’s relationship with Fox over the past few months, things could have gotten ugly. They haven’t.
Carlson’s legion of Fox News fans were cheering (including some in very high places).
Here’s a sample.
— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) January 5, 2017
Congrats to @TuckerCarlson on his new timeslot! Have enjoyed his program.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 5, 2017
— HowFirmThyFriendship (@But4OhioState86) January 5, 2017
Carlson, a television broadcast veteran who also helped found the conservative, Washington-based website The Daily Caller in 2010, has obviously made a name for himself on the right end of the political spectrum.
Kelly, who went from media figure to household name thanks to her dustup with Donald Trump at the beginning of the GOP primary season in 2015, is moving into a chance to establish herself in the non-Fox mainstream media now, too. And publicly at least seems to be handling the situation with grace.
The liberal adolescents in the White House could take a few lessons in transitions.
Support for building a wall on the Mexican border is building in some surprising places.
As low-budget county jails across America struggle with the burden of President Obama’s lax border-control policies, sheriffs from states far from the Mexican border are offering their inmates as labor for President-elect Donald Trump’s signature project.
And they’re blasting President Obama in the process.
In Massachusetts this week, newly re-elected Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson offered the incoming president the labor of “eight to 10” county jail inmates to build Trump’s long-promised wall on the southern border, more than 3,500 miles away from Hodgson’s jurisdiction.
“A lot of the sheriffs across the nation want to use this resource,” Hodgson, a longtime critic of Obama immigration policies, told the Boston Herald. “This is a chance for us to save taxpayers’ money. It’s long overdue.”
That’s because the crime problems brought by illegal aliens aren’t limited to the border regions.
Check out the coverage of Hodgson’s proposal from WCVB in Boston.
Naturally, the proposition of using local inmate labor on a far-flung enterprise like a Mexican border wall doesn’t sit well in some quarters – generally quarters where crime committed by illegal aliens isn’t much of a factor. But inmates at all levels of incarceration are routinely given jobs that generally go toward engaging them in meaningful work or reducing their sentences. There’s no reason work on a construction project like the border wall couldn’t be made just as constitutional as work in the prison kitchen or laundry.
For local sheriffs, who face the consequences of those crimes daily, it would be well worth the effort.
At a news conference in Polk County, Florida, in late December, following the arrest of six men in a large methamphetamine operation, Sheriff Grady Judd described the ringleader – an illegal alien from Mexico – as Exhibit A in why the U.S. needs a border crackdown, according to WFTS in Tampa Bay.
Ignacio Munoz-Delgado, 43, had already been arrested and deported from Polk County, Judd said. But Obama-Era border security didn’t stop him from returning to set up a violent criminal organization.
“He came back to the United States, he armed himself with a lot of weapons and he started selling a lot of meth,” Judd said, WFTS reported.
“This guy needs to be on your bus, on your plane, or on your train or however it is and get him out of this country,” said Judd, who’s called for stronger immigration controls since the George W. Bush administration. “But if you don’t build a wall he’s not going to stay out of this country.
“I’ve got inmate labor to help you do it if you need it,” he said.
To local lawmen, the crimes in their communities being committed by individuals who have no business being in the country are particularly aggravating because of the eight years President Obama has spent destroying cooperation between the federal government and grassroots law enforcement.
According to the Boston Herald, Hodgson sees the incoming Trump administration as a way to change the dynamics of illegal immigrant crime. To do that, he proposed a new federal program called National Inmates Community Endeavors (NICE), which would not only include the wall on the southern border, but also inmate work in communities hit by natural disasters.
“Project NICE extends beyond rebuilding cities and towns to nationwide projects that have a positive impact on our communities and public safety. Projects like President-elect Donald Trump’s border wall,” Hodgson said during his address after being sworn in.
“This [Obama] administration has obliterated partnerships. This gives us the tools we need,” Hodgson said. “Especially in the post-9/11 world.”
Well, it’s going to be a post-Obama Era world soon. Building the new world could start with building that wall.
As gestures go, it’s worse than useless…and given the breathtaking brutality of the livestreamed black-on-white torture in the bloody Windy City, it’s even more shocking.
Less than an hour away from the black-on-black killing ground of Chicago, university students and administrators have hoisted a banner proudly proclaiming how utterly ignorant and politically driven higher education remains in the United States.
And they sound proud of themselves for it.
Beginning this week, and for the next two weeks, a Black Lives Matter banner will be flying over the campus of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, a scant 20 miles from the city where more than 760 people were murdered in 2016 — its bloodiest year since 1996, according to the Chicago Tribune.
More than 600 of those dead were blacks, virtually all of them killed by other blacks, but the students at Northwestern apparently see fit to launch a flag to celebrate a movement dedicated to propagating the lie that racist American police officers are the real danger to “Black Lives” in 2017.
Maybe the fact that only about 6 percent of Northwestern’s students are actually black has something to do with it.
Danielle Harris, a communications senior — supervisor at the school’s student center and part of the 6 percent population — was the driving force behind the red, black and green banner with the words “Black Lives Matter” stacked from top to bottom.
She told The Daily Northwestern, the student newspaper, that she got the idea when another hotbed of racial diversity, the University of Vermont (student population about 1 percent black) decided to hoist its own Black Lives Matter banner in the name of solidarity oppressed.
“After seeing that … the immediate question is, ‘If the University of Vermont can do that, then how come Northwestern can’t do that?’” Harris said.
Well, one reason was that it makes a lot of people angry to see a publicly supported institution like a university literally flying the flag for a movement that is arguably as inherently racist as any white-hooded Ku Klux Klansmen burning a cross in the backwoods.
Does anyone doubt the four Chicago teens apprehended for torturing a disabled white man on video while shouting “F*** Trump” and “F*** white people” are sympathetic to the dangerous racial stereotyping promoted by Black Lives Matter?
The imprimatur of MSNBC and The New York Times doesn’t make a group that inspired chanting during a moment of silence for slain police officers at the Democratic National Convention or that insists on eliminating the phrase “all lives matter” from the public lexicon any less racist.
(It’s a lesson the University of Vermont learned when it sparked its own controversy in the lily-white Green Mountain State, as The Washington Post reported.)
But undaunted by the reality of the real causes of violent death among blacks, willfully blind to the facts of America in 2017, Northwestern flies its Black Lives Matter banner to mark a two-week university program – apparently heralded by spineless administrators – called “Black Lives Matter: A Northwestern dialogue.”
The “dialogue’s” Facebook program is full of “Black Lives Matter”-oriented material, but not one of the events seems to focus on the real issue of life and death among blacks in America, and particularly in that sprawling metropolis to the south where black Americans lose their lives so cheaply – at the hands of other black Americans.
To the Black Lives Matter gang, though, the “problem” is white racism, and cops whom they smear with a broad brush of ignorance?
The banner might look lovely and liberal flying over the overwhelmingly white campus of Northwestern University, but as far as gestures go, it’s really worse than useless.
In the waning days of his administration, President Obama has been cheered on by activists as he packed in as many midnight rules and regulations as his pen and phone would allow.
It was one last chance to try to secure his legacy.
So, imagine the irony when the men and women of the left chastised congressional Republicans for — get this — moving with equal swiftness to undo those actions.
Yet, that’s exactly what happened on Wednesday, where congressional Democrats took to the floor of the House of Representatives to complain bitterly about the Midnight Rule Relief Act — a bill designed to expedite the process of repealing Obama’s lame-duck regulations once he leaves office.
According to The Hill, the Midnight Rule Relief Act — one of the first actions of the Republican-controlled 115th Congress — would expedite the consideration of swiftly imposed rules and regulations under the Congressional Review Act. It passed by a party-line vote of 238-184, moving it on to the Senate, also under GOP control.
“All this legislation does is allow for us to dispose of one or more regulations in an expedited fashion in this body and have it seen in the same form in the Senate,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said. “It doesn’t change the underlying law.”
The Congressional Review Act, enacted in 1996 as the part of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” allows for the repeal of any rule by Congress within 60 congressional session days of it being enacted.
However, Issa pointed to the fact that only one rule has been successfully repealed by the Congressional Review Act, back in 2001; the new framework would make it significantly easier for such repeals to happen under the 115th Congress.
Which is why the Democrats were so furious over its passage.
“I’m surprised that without hearings, without opportunity for amendment, we are now considering a measure that has this much opposition,” Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said.
That same disdain for actions being taken without hearings or without opportunity for amendment remained unsurprisingly unexpressed by Rep. Conyers for the hastily-assembled midnight rules currently being shoved down the maw of the federal regulatory infrastructure by a president determined to cement a legacy that is quickly coming undone.
At least this time, the representatives of the people were the ones weighing in on it, as opposed to a lame-duck president and a coterie of technocrats, none of whom have any accountability to the American electorate at this moment.
The Hill also managed to find something called the American Sustainable Business Council to weigh in against the act (as opposed to the 29 relatively well-known organizations who signed a letter opposing the midnight regulations, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Campaign for Freedom).
“This would be like taking a chainsaw into surgery,” David Levine, CEO of the ASBC, said. “Businesses depend on good regulations to set clear boundaries and rules for fair competition on a level playing field.”
Yes, certain businesses do love regulations — especially when they solidify their competitive advantage in the marketplace. Most businesses, however, tend to be a bit less psyched about cutting through a new ream of government red tape, especially since those regulations kill jobs and hurt their bottom lines.
Levine also complained about Congress being able to “undo batches of rules without any consideration of their individual merits,” according to The Hill. But if these rules have such great “individual merits,” why are they being enacted under the cover of night in the death throes of a lame-duck Democrat presidency?
The generally onerous nature of the Obama administration’s last-minute power grabs can be glimpsed by the fact that this flurry of rules and regulations did not come during the eight years the president has been in office, or in the fact that he refused to propose them before the election.
Those who cheered on Obama as he flaunted the advise-and-consent role of Congress shouldn’t be alarmed or surprised when that Congress makes moves to quash his eleventh-hour agenda.
For American businesses and taxpayers alike, what happened Wednesday is an enormous victory. It proves what we had all hoped — that Barack Obama’s pen has run out of ink, and his phone has run out of battery.