I learned from Carl Cannon of Real Clear Politics today that Ted Cruz is running for president. Mr. Cannon spoke about the “irony” of Cruz’s vision for the nation. Perhaps I am not giving Mr. Cannon enough credit. Perhaps he is executing a conscious attempt to derogatorily define Ted Cruz out of the gate – which I could regard as a calculated, if reprehensible, move , but he actually seemed to be sincere in his criticism. How could Mr. Cannon have such a glaringly obvious blind spot? The irony of his irony is indicative of the state of the Democrat party – as one writer so perfectly put it, it is the intellectual equivalent of foot binding, their thinking has been so tightly constrained in such a small space for so long, it has become deformed.
Here are Cannon’s criticisms of Cruz:
- His “thin” resume
- His short tenure in the Senate
- His (my paraphrase) “unrealistic ideology”
If you are a conservative you are already chuckling to yourself with a knowing nod, but if you are a liberal you are probably completely lost and already sputtering left wing talking points in an effort to console yourself. So for you lefies, I will explain.
These criticisms apply with much greater weight and more just application to Barack Obama than to Ted Cruz. Here’s how:
Remember that Harvard degree that so impress you when it belonged to Barack Obama? Ted Cruz has a Harvard degree, Magna Cum Laude. He also has a degree from Princeton, Cum Laude. Liberal Professor Alan Dershowitz called him “off the charts brilliant.” Unlike Obama, he had a position of responsibility as Solicitor General of Texas, where he argued Constitutional law before the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama also spent two years as a senator before he started his presidential campaign. Unlike Ted Cruz, he was working for Acorn and busy “community organizing.”
On ideology, Mr. Cannon expresses dismay that Cruz would imagine a country without Obamacare or the IRS. He apparently is not one of the millions of Americans hurt by Obamacare, as I am. Self employed and no longer able to afford Health Insurance, because of Obamacare, but still paying tax dollars to pay for others health care, and a fine to boot.
Why is it that Democrats believe abolishing an IRS that targets citizens based on political party is unthinkable, but a nuclear Iran is acceptable? How did they get so backward? And how could Carl Cannon miss the oh-so-obvious parallels of his criticism of Cruz and the Obama campaign he supported?
Is it the politically correct bubble they live in where everyone thinks just like they do? The DC/NY corridor where they never meet an average American person? Or just the religious devotion to all things big government?
This lack of self-awareness, and inability to see things objectively often leads to wrong conclusions, and wrong conclusions lead to faulty solutions, and faulty solutions lead to bad outcomes. Which is how we find ourselves with a President that does not respect our Constitution, does not listen to the will of the people, does not create an environment of prosperity at home or security abroad, yet is still supported by people like Carl.
#ThingsWeTrustMoreThanObama is trending on Twitter. Go there. It will lift your soul.
Politicos in Washington don’t care about process. To their mind, whatever it takes to achieve the goal is acceptable. To their mind, the only thing that matters is the political “win.”
To real Americans, average Americans, the process should and does matter. Our Republic, our Constitution, is what protects us from an abusive government. No matter how dumbed down and complacent too many of us have become, there is still something which stirs inside and says to us, “not good!” in response to Obama’s unconstitutional action.
There are three branches of government, designed to work in conflict with each other. The congress and the presidency, as well as the separate branches within congress, and the states and federal government are antagonistic by design. The framers felt that only through competing powers could the power of each individual branch be kept in check.
The legislative branch, the House in particular, is to represent the people. They are closest to the people, and most accountable. This is why they alone were given the power to appropriate funds.
When the president takes the functions of the legislative branch upon himself, where is our representation? When the president takes our tax dollars and uses them for purposes not appropriated by our congress, where is our representation?
Like it or not, pundits, the issue at hand is no different than that of King George the Third. Taxation without representation is what we are experiencing.
There is no place to escape to, so we must work within the system, and I hope and pray that our Supreme Court will involve itself and reinforce the limits of presidential power. If not, we have ceased to be citizens, and have returned to being subjects.