Ted Cruz on Social Media Censorship

Diamond and Silk on Social Media Censorship

Prominent conservative voices in social media, such as Diamond and Silk and Dan Bongino, have vociferously voiced outrage that Big Internet has banned them as being unsafe for the social media  community because of their outspoken ideological opinions. This parallels YouTube demonetizing many of Dennis Prager's popular Prager U videos because the conservative views expressed did not sync with the progressive views of their internet overlords. And Twitter is infamous for shadow banning conservatives, even Senator Ted Cruz, without recourse or equal application against outrageous leftist Twits.

Diamond and Silk, who gained fame through their vigorous defense of then Presidential candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, did not silently take this rough trade from Facebook. On Fox and Friends, Diamond and Silk postulated that Mark Zuckerberg needed to "[S]uck it up, buttercup" and accept diverse viewpoints and freedom of speech on its social network, just as the small Indiana pizzeria would be forced to cater a same-sex wedding despite their religious objections to the ceremony.




Alas, Diamond and Silk have a weak case in a court of law.  Without meandering into the details of RFRA and First Amendment religious liberty, same-sex marriage proponents could point to civil rights legislation which the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Harris claim a right to dignity for that class.  What protected class can Diamond and Silk rightfully claim against Facebook?

However, in the court of public opinion, Facebook engaging in ideological viewpoint discrimination could be a compelling case for action.  Does MySpace mean anything to Mark Zuckerberg?  That was a social media precursor to Facebook, but when it stopped being cool, it became ghost of itself and a dark web conduit.  Facebook is much bigger and is receiving congressional scrutiny.  Between viewpoint discrimination and revelations of data mining, shareholders should be concerned if Facebook were to become a fraction of its former self.

Facebook has ceased to be a mainly youth oriented site.  Adults may well chafe at having their lives data sold by the social media company.  But for motivated conservatives, this cyber censorship may well have this active demographic find alternatives to speak freely, like on GAB.

On the Meaning of Robin Hood to US

During a debate sponsored by CNN between Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) and Conservative Senator Ted Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas demolished the Democrat conceit that progressives take from the rich to give to the poor. 

Smart SCOTUS Oppo Strategerie (sic)

As sagacious of a strategist Committee for Justice President Curt Levey may be, it seems that Democrats in the District of Calamity have taken a different tact.

Senator Jeff Markey has declared that there must be payback for the 114th Congress not approving lame duck former President Obama's pick of Merrick  Garland.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer )D-NY) has declared that he will not work with President Trump unless he utterly does the Democrats' bidding.

In years past, protestations of non-cooperation might have caused Senate Republicans to buckle and moderate.  But thanks to former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Reid Rule, cooperation for cloture on appointments is now moot.

Democrats may bluster that only needing a majority was not intended to be for Supreme Court nominees, but that is after the fact dicta.  Per Hugh Hewitt and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Reid Rule is about the Senate only requiring a majority to change the rules mid-session. Besides, Reid himself intimated that he showed his Democrat Senate colleagues how to steamroll the GOP with this rule, even for High Court picks Even liberal Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) admits that the filibuster is no longer an emergency brake on nominations.

Under normal circumstances, a newly elected President has little opposition to his first Supreme Court nominee, especially early in his first term.  But these are not ordinary times.  Democrats are wont to hyperventilate about anything that the Trump Administration does, and seem happy to escalate any altercation to the extreme.  Democrats have sought to slow walk Trump Administration confirmation hearings, going so far as to not show up at Senate Committee Hearing votes.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been chary to confirm that Republicans will invoke what was once called "the nuclear option", but he has been steadfast in assuring the public that Trump Administration will be confirmed.  The same is true regarding  President  Trump's pick for the Supreme Court.

The dangera that Democrats have in protesting so vehemently to everything in the early Trump Administration and calling supporters out to the ramparts is three fold.

 First, they risk over-exhausting their partisans.  You can only cry "the sky is falling" only so often before it loses its desired effect.

Secondly, Democrats are not picking their battles wisely.  It is not only the incoherence of opposing everything, but in going to the mat for losing causes.  Because of the Reid Rule, President Trump will get his Cabinet appointments and most likely the first Supreme Court pick.  By fighting so hard on the nominations, it may serve to demoralize their partisans.

Thirdly, the hyperventilating opposition may play well for the progressive base of the Democrat Party but it may serve to alienate white, working class Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016 on positions and personnel with which they agree.

Historically, Democrats do not turn out in mid-term elections.  In the 2018 election cycle, Democrats have 23 seats up in the Senate, including in states which voted for Trump.  Such strident opposition, epitomized by an obstructionist approach to Trump's first Supreme Court pick (even before he is announced) may solidify a one time "what have you got to lose" vote to a realigning "my party has left me" metanoia, thereby making  Blue Dogs and DC Democrats politically endangered species. 

Bjorn Lomborg Checks the Temperature of the Paris Climate Change Accord

In the past few years, left leaning leaders from around the globe have been keen to tackle climate change.  Pope Francis wrote a bull Laudato Si urging world leaders to come to terms together in the Paris Climate Change Agreement.    They sought to sign the Paris Climate Change Agreement with great fanfare, but on the eve of the Summit, the multiple Paris attacks occurred drawing attention away from the achievement. 

Now that it has come time to implement the Paris Climate Change Agreement, skeptical environmentalists question the efficaciousness of the accord.  But dissent is not something that progressive politicans or the press can fathom.Senator Ted Cruz stumped Sierra Club President Aaron Mair in testimony to account for Climate Change considering the 17 year lull in warming. 

 French Mathematicians were deemed to be dolts when then point out the absurd cost of prospective compliance with COP 21 promises. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, accepts the fact the global temperatures are rising but postulates that the Paris Accords are more about Climate Aid than really solving the problem of Climate Change. 

Science is supposed to be about facts and informed inquiry.  But that is not how Climate Change advocates evangelize as they attack apostates who question if it is settled science.   Sean Penn has suggested shaming Climate Change deniers .  A French weatherman was pulled off the air for not spouting the liberal party line about climate change.

In a quixotic attempt to engage progressives who profess the secular religion of Climate Change, Bjorn Lomborg made a video in conjunction with Prager University to illustrate the absurdity of COP 21 promises and solving the anthropogenic climate change problem

Sadly, those steeped in Climate Change politics are reluctant to engage in cost benefit analysis much less critical appraisals of the proposals, as they implore that "something must be done" and will hear nothing else.

The Legacy of Dirty Harry and the Reid Rule on Senate Filibusters

A legacy of former Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid (D-NV) was the effective elimination of the confirmation filibuster.  

Under the Constitution, it is the Senate's duty to confirm Executive and Judicial Branch appointments.  Senate rules allowed for confirmations with mere majorities, but needed to obtain 60 votes to cut off debate (Cloture) and preclude a filibuster.  The Cloture vote was intended to prevent endless obstructionism while still giving the minority some say in the proceedings of the Upper Chamber of Congress.

Needing to get enough votes for cloture was an incentive for Republicans to select more moderate appointees which required Senate consent.  But such Senate niceties stopped political steamrolling by Majorities who wished to exercise their unadulterated will.

When the Obama Administration sought to pack the Court of Appeals for DC (aka the DC Circuit), which is the court of authority for regulatory bodies, it ran into trouble when its candidates might not have received the requisite support for a Cloture Vote.  So then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, exercised "The Nuclear Option".  Exercising the Nuclear Option had been hotly debated in the preceding decade, but then Senate Majority Leader  Bill Frist (R-TN) opted not to circumvent tradition. 

Through Parliamentary legerdemain, Reid established a precedent in which he said that all judicial nominees, save Justices of the Supreme Court, would be considered on majority votes and did not have to pass the Cloture Vote threshold.  

The Reid Rule was great when one's party is in control of the Senate and the White House. But in 2017, President Donald Trump will occupy the White House and Republicans have a two seat majority in the Senate.  Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer thinks that he can stymie the Trump Administration through the advice and consent clause as well as any Supreme Court nominations which do not represent progressive Democrat values.  However, Schumer may well rue the Reid rule legacy from Dirty Harry Reid. 

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Salem Radio host Hugh Hewitt had an informative colloquy on the Reid Rule.

 Republicans may not moderate their choices for positions which need to be confirmed by the Senate.  Despite Harry Reid's contention that the "Reid Rule" excludes Supreme Court nominees, it is contented that avoiding Cloture for a Supreme Court nomination would simply be a second application of the Reid Rule precedent.

The Din of Disdain for Obama's Chief "Diplomatch" John Kerry

In the waning days of the Obama Administration, international affairs are sullying the lame duck President's legacy.  In a United Nations Security Council vote held before Christmas, the United States failed to block a resolution condemning Israel for settlements in disputed territories. 

This was a shift in American policy, which had previously threatened to veto such condemnations of our democratic ally in the Middle East.  It is widely speculated that American diplomats orchestrated the UN Security Council Vote vote, which the US subsequently abstained to not have diplomatic fingerprints on the rebuke of the Jewish State.

After Christmas, President Obama's Secretary of State doubled down on critics of America's ally in Israel with a 73 minute repetitive harangue of a speech which chided Israel about settlements 42 times and occupation 14 times, while the haughty foreign minister only mentioned Iran and Hezbollah one time, and Hamas (which is part of the Palestinian governing leadership) four times. Perhaps Kerry thinks that America's foreign policy will now pass "the global test". 





Reaction to the Obama Administration's outgoing admonitions of Israel have been swift and bipartisan. The Washington Times characterized incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  as tearing into John Kerry's Israeli speech as it emboldened extremists. House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY 16th) vowed to work with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Congress withholding UN funds until the anti- Israel vote is reversed   Senator Cruz had some bitter analysis over the Obama Administration's anti-Israel tact.

Even President Elect Donald Trump entered the fray, opining on social media that things would   change come January 20th.

Recently, a progressive interlocutor opined that President Obama has been Israel's best friend ever.  I thought that was a dubious assertion.  But Secretary of State Kerry's penchant for acting like a Diplomatch (sic) really impeaches that opinion. 

Even after all of the tumult after the 2016 election, it is surprising that what is bringing Democrats and Republicans together is the foreign policy pyrotechnics of the outgoing Obama Administration. 

When the Supreme Court Acts Like Politicians

The Supreme Court will start consideration of cases in its new term on the first Monday in October.  A Federalist Society panel previewing the Supreme Court's new term expected that SCOTUS will have a diminished case-load during the 2016-2017 term as it awaits confirmation of  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement. It  is assumed that the Supreme Court is avoiding some controversial cases to avoid having a 4-4 tie, which does not establish precedent and upholds the Appeals Court ruling.

There are several schools of thought concerning the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  If Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wins the election but if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, there is good reason to believe that Obama designee Merrick Garland will be confirmed during the Lame Duck session.  Although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claims that Lame Duck sessions are not appropriate for SCOTUS confirmations, the thinking from the GOP may well be to go with the Devil they know rather than one which they don't know.

Some Democrats believe if they win both the White House and the Senate, then Hillary would want to install her own (presumably more progressive pick).  But some optimistic institutionalists hold fast to the notion that Mrs. Clinton would abide by the process and still push forward her predecessor's choice.  Either way, in such a scenario, it would be expected that there would be a lengthy evaluation and vetting process to achieve Senatorial Advice and Consent, thus keeping the evenly divided court well into the term.

Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy

A more philosophical question is what should be the role of the Supreme Court.  A common rallying cry in Presidential elections is control of the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia's passing in February levels an ideologically fractured SCOTUS (four liberals, three conservatives and Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy), but with indications that progressives are itching to be more activist. 

Chelsea Clinton has mentioned on the hustings that openings the Supreme Court will allow her mother to fundamentally redefine the parameters of the Second Amendment.  

Most likely there would be no outright repeal of this fundamental freedom given by God, but it would take a narrow reading of the organic law and assert that this right is limited to organized militias. This would effectively make it a dead letter, like the Tenth Amendment.

So instead of being final arbiters of cases, the Supreme Court would act like a super-legislature, only they are unelected (thus unaccountable) and there is virtually no way to upend their ukases.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) while campaigning for President proposed having retention elections for the judiciary, as they do in Iowa.  That sounds more appealing on the campaign trail then it would be applicable in the Federal City. However, it does voice the frustration of many Americans who feel cut out of the governing process.  California twice approved referendums defining marriage (which was primarily a state issue), yet in Obergefell, the Supreme Court overturned the will of voters under a Right of Dignity interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and then expanded this right of same-sex marriage to all 50 states.

Two longer shot prospects not considered by judicial watchers are the possibility that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) might win and actually live by his promise to nominate conservative judicial candidates.  

The other way to remedy judicial tyranny would be limitations on Article III power.  While Congress can theoretically reign in lower courts, it is unlikely to do so. This would leave such reformation to application of an Article V Convention of States.  While the Article V safety valve for a Convention of States has been in place for 227 years, it has never been successfully invoked yet. But as more and more power is taken away from states yet they are saddled with the brunt of implementing dictates from the District of Calamity (sic), this may become a more feasible possibility. 

On Trump's Failed Pivot to Normalcy

As the 2016 Republican Presidential Primaries drew towards a close and Donald Trump (R-NY) had the nomination locked up, his new campaign manager Paul Manafort promised that Trump 2.0 would be more serious and his image would change.

Well, it's after the balloon drop at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and the song remains the same. Trump continues to eschew party unity by denigrating his fellow Republicans, steps on his own message by doubling down on bizarre conspiracy theories about his opponent's families and wantonly alienates important voter segments by viciously counter-punching at every perceived slight.


Continually Smearing Cruz 

Fox News panelist and Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes chronicled several of the general election missteps in the immediate aftermath of the RNC in CLE.  It is mind boggling that after a smooth convention in Cleveland that stressed party unity that Trump used a press conference the next day to revive the rumor that Senator Ted Cruz's father Rafael was involved in the conspiracies around the assassination of JFK in 1963 because it was published in the National Enquirer.

So instead of capitalizing on the image of GOP unity or putting forth a focused general election campaign message, people chattered about this crazy conspiracy talk.  That stepped on his message. Now Trump may have wanted Cruz to acquiesce and kiss the ring (before he held the news conference saying that he didn't want the endorsement) but to use this tact to disparage Cruz's political future was stupid and leaned towards the loony.

Cruz supporters did not appreciate attacks on the leading Republican challenger. Going against Cruz for perceived sins of the father seems scummy. And to use a questionable National Enquirer photo expose shows that he's not serious. Trump may have been trying to forgo a challenge to re-election in 2020 but first he need to be elected. In the event that Trump is successful in November, he will need every vote in the Senate to have his Supreme Court nominations approved. Alienating a legislative ally is not smart.

The Wrath of Khan

{L] Ghazala and [R] Kzir Khan at DNC in Philadelphi 

Another Trump faux pas was continued attacks against the parents of a Gold Star family who lost their son in 2004 who spoke against him at the DNC in Philadelphia. Rather than respect the sharp critique of Khazi Khan who's son was sacrificed in preserving America's liberty, Trump went after the family. First, Trump questioned why the Pakistani immigrant's wife was silence, giving a dog whistle to those wanting a Muslim ban.  Then Trump questioned if Kahn was giving the speech.  Trump surrogate Roger Stone suggested that Khan may be part of the  Muslim Brotherhood.  That would be a neat trick for a Pakistani family to join an Egyptian based organization. When Mr. Kahn appeared on morning television shows, Trump live tweeted that it was all about Islamic Terrorism.

Thus Trump slanders the family and conflates Muslim with Islamist terrorists.  Pro-tip: If you are going to sympathetic foes, have the good sense to leave it to your surrogates. And reign in your attack dogs to not be too outrageous in their indictments. In Trump parlance: Get smart.

So Trump revived the racist perception of the Muslim ban, displays what can be interpreted as religious bigotry about propriety of women speaking, conflates Muslim with terrorism and seems to denigrate the sacrifice of the Khan's son in pursuit of scoring political points.

Many people have taken verbal pot shots at former President George W. Bush's War in Iraq.  Grieving mother turned political activist Cindy Sheehen would often give the 43rd President an earful for the mess in Mesopotamia. But Bush would grieve with the families, silently take their verjuice and then make policy without attacking Gold Star families.

With Trump's continued attacks on the Khans, Gold Star Family organizations are clamoring for an apology from Trump.  Thus Trump's thin-skin and instinct to always attack is alienating a segment of voters who would be likely to support him.  Considering the way that Trump was booed by crowds in Denver after Trump denigrated General John Allen (who also spoke at the DNC) as a loser, maybe Trump doesn't think that he needs the military vote anyways.

Many establishment Republicans and anti-Hillary activists are trying to convince principled conservatives to give in and vote to Trump, because the alternative is so much worse.  Maybe. But Trump is not making it easy to make that Hobson's choice. Trump continues to act impulsively, engaging his mouth before his brain, picking stupid fights and then doubling down, pursuing a short term strategy for momentary ratings. These are not hallmarks of leadership in America.

Stephen Hayes was spot on about Trump's failed pivot to normalcy. It is unbecoming of a leader. No wonder Hillary Clinton's campaign will now focus on how Trump is unfit for leading America.  Now that the GOP nominated him, they are going to have to spend the next hundred days trying to minimize the damage from unpredictable, impolitic and sometimes untenable ejaculations from their nominee. Good luck.

RIP GOP After RNC in CLE?

Dan Senor's observation about a divided Republican Party was epitomized by a recent gathering on Capitol Hill. The Dubliner Pub hosted an unusual viewing party for Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump's (R-NY) acceptance speech.  Former Hill Rats and GOP Administration alumni gathered for a wake for the Republican Party. 

Lest one be lured into a facile understanding that these are just sour grapes of Republican Establishment flunkies chaffing at meeting the new boss of the party, the chasm between outsiders and establishment is not a clean cut.  While four GOP standard bearers including former President George H.W. Bush ('88 and; '92 nominee),  former President George W. Bush ('00 and '04 nominee), ex Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA '12 nominee) and  Senator John McCain (R-AZ  '08 nominee) consciously chose to skip the RNC in CLE, this disdain was not universal.  Melania Trump recognized from the dais ex Senator Bob Dole ( R-KS '96 nominee). Of course ,Dole conveniently endorsed Trump in December.  Moreover, many former Dole staffers have been joining the Trump campaign.

Establishment Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also attended the Trump Show. Trump winning works into the Cocktail Party agenda of eliminating pesky Tea Party types from between the beltways.  There may be a calculus by Cocktail Party chiefs that if Trump wins, they can cut backroom deals with him.  If Trump goes to ignominious defeat, then the Grand Old Party will have to rely on the Establishment as they lick their wounds in the 115th Congress.

Obviously, Senator Ted Cruz's non-endorsement of Trump illustrates the Republican Party in exile.  Cruz's Constitutional conservatism may make strange bedfellows with more moderate Republicans in exile.  But they can probably agree that threatening to trash trade deals like NAFTA, effectively blowing up NATO and ignoring back actors in the world under the guise of America First neo-isolationism is anathematic to the Post World War II Republican Party. 

The Roger Stone-ing (sic) of Ted Cruz

Roger Stone has been known since the Nixon Administration as a dirty trickster and has a long time relationship with now Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY).  Stone had to officially part ways with the Trump campaign in August 2015 over disagreements in the wisdom of persiverating on trashing Fox News' Megyn Kelly. 

While Stone was not officially associated with the campaign, he continues to play the role of Agent Provocateur for Trump.  Stone's excoriation of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was not the first taste of Stone's vituperative verjuice. Stone furthered the Trump allegation that Cruz's father Rafael had some involvement in the JFK assassination conspiracy on Alex Jones' show.

As for the content of Stone's philippic on being a despicable human being, he may have some first hand experience with that character issue.

But this seems to be the cohort for the Trump Show: aggressive (to a fault), bellicose,  thin-skinned, vain, vulgar and volitile counter-punchers.  Is this the Republican party that voters of conscience will support?

Ted Cruz on Voting One's Conscience in Election 2016

Senator Ted Cruz gave a remarkable speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention.  While he congratulated GOP nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) for his victory in the primaries, Cruz resisted the cajoling by the media and Trump surrogates to endorse the Manhattan mogul turned Reality TV host turned Populist politician.

Instead, Cruz espoused traditional conservative Republican Party principles and urged those watching to support such candidates in the fall elections.

This message was no surprise to the Donald, as he was given an advanced copy two hours before delivery.  Publicly, Trump claims that Cruz' non endorsement was "no big deal".

However, this nonchalance is impeached by behind the scenes maneuvers. Trump sent surrogates to whip their people to boo Cruz's call for conscience.  They may have been blindly supporting their ticket, but listening to the words delivered, they impugned freedom, faithfulness to the Constitution and fidelity to one's conscience in the boos. 

[L] Donald Trump Jr. [R] GOP Presidential Nominee Donald Trump hearing Sen. Cruz at GOP Convention

Some delegates reported that Trump convention floor whips predicted to wait until tomorrow until Cruz is torn apart by a female and a male media type.  Enquiring minds (sic) want to know-- who could this be?

The day after his convention speech, Cruz  was challenged by a delegate why he broke his loyalty pledge. Cruz cited how Trump had personally attacked his wife's looks and implicated his father as being involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy. 

 Cruz could have added Trump's libelous labeling of him as "liar" and the gutless accusations that he did could not run for President because he was not a natural born citizen.  The latter charge was gutless as Trump was one of the few Americans who had standing to sue, and Trump blustered but never filed.  Yet Trump would bring out the hoary chestnut whenever he felt threatened by Cruz in the campaign.

Unlike Trump's take that it is all about him, there is the rest of the Republican party down the ticket. It is important for those incumbents and prospective office holders to define their political philosophies, which may differ from the unprinciple populism which prevailed for the top of the ticket.

Between Trump-ism and the suppression of floor votes on grassroots oriented Rules on day one of the convention, there may be a growing chasm between being a Republican and being a conservative. This is the dialectic which Cruz urged voters of conscience to decide. 

The Huckster on Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz on the Mainstream Media

Ted Cruz on Clinton Email Non Prosecution

Ted Cruz on Supreme Court Ruling on Whole Woman's Health Abortion Case

Ted Cruz on Donald Trump's Injudicious Jibes on a Sitting Judge

Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump is involved in a civil case of fraud concerning the so called Trump University. The trial will be heard under Judge Gonzalo Curiel in Federal District Court November 2016. 

As Trump was poised to begin his general election campaign, Trump kept bringing up this pending litigation, citing that Judge Curiel was MEXICAN (despite the inconvenient truth that the judge was born in INDIANA and had a history as a federal prosecutor of going after the Mexican drug cartels). 

In a follow-interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on State of the Nation, Trump continually claimed that Curiel was Mexican and could not be impartial because Trump claims that he want to build a wall to prevent illegal immigration.

Trump subsequently questioned whether a Muslim judge could hear matters about "The Donald". As this judicial bias controversy was roiling, Trump Spokeswoman Katrina Pierson also implied that women judges may be biased too

Thus Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was among the first Republican to note the inappropriateness of Trump's judicial jibes.

Well, if Trump feels that Judge Curiel is not impartial, then why not make a legal motion for the Judge to recuse.  For that matter, why did Trump's legal staff (since he always hires the best) allow Curiel to be transferred to the case in the first place.

Normally, when there is a motion for a judge to be withdrawn, there must be concrete proof of bias. To the public, Trump just smears the judge as being "Mexican" (which is incorrect).  If Trump's attorney file a motion on such racial grounds, there is standing case law that will immediately be rejected and the attorneys may be sanctioned.

But the Paralepsis Politician may calculate that it is better to smear in the court of public opinion, in which judicial ethics restrain Judge Curiel from directly defending himself.  Trump does have a history of filing specious libel suits, which have little legal merit but sufficiently sully the target.  

Trump certainly used the same strategy in besmirching the reputation of Senator Cruz regarding his eligibility to run for President in 2016.  Trump kept repeating that Cruz was not a natural born citizen, hence was ineligible to become President  Even though Trump was one of the few individuals who had standing to successfully file the case, Trump was content to impugn Cruz in the court of public opinion without doing anything of legal consequence.  Once Trump had eliminated Cruz as being a threat, all the vitriol was considered inconsequential.

No wonder Senator Cruz was not willing to carry Trump's water on this judicial jibe which was replete with racism. 

Cruz Manifestly Slams Communism at Campaign Stop

During a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a student asked Republican Presidential hopeful Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to sign his "economics textbook".  Cruz obliged but noted that the tome was the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx.



Rather than call out thugs to make the disrupter disappear, Cruz made his point through a clever signing statement. WSBT cameras covered how Cruz noted how millions suffered because of this economic ideology and how it impacted his family's history.  Cruz then thanked the student for coming to the event.

This is a much different tact than seems to occur at Trump rallies.  It is not just the Trump riot in Santa Cruz, California.  It seems that pugnaciousness is encouraged and dissent is not tolerated at in the Trump rump.

This is not the first time that Cruz has engaged with opposition in his audience to his advtange.  Last July, Code Pink crashed a rally against the Iran Deal in Lafayette Park near the White House.  Instead of shouting down the opposition or folding the tent, Cruz lent the microphone to Medea Benajamin and other Pink protester to engage with them on their points, rather than staged talking points. But naturally that does not make the news, because the Lamestream Media would rather cover such vital stories as Cruz refers to basketball rings in Indiana.

On Boehner's Diabolic Diatribe Against Cruz

When speaking before an audience in Stanford University,  ex Speaker of the House John Boehner excoriated Republican Presidential hopeful Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) by calling him an SOB and comparing him with the Prince of Darkness.  While at the same time, Boehner admitted that he was a texting and golfing buddy of GOP Presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

Delving deeper into this devilish diatribe, it is easy to understand Boehner's bad-mouthng comes as no surprise.

Boehner was a quintessential Cocktail Party Republican.  Boehner first joined the House in 1991 so he had an establishment bent,, albeit not to personally include earmarks. By the time Boehner ascended into leadership roles for House Republicans, the party's power waned so it was important to go along to get along. This modus operendi was complicated by the advent of the Tea Party, which wanted to have constitutional rule of law, smaller government and fighting for your principles.

In September 2013, Senator Ted Cruz gave a 21 hour filibuster to fight for Obamacare changes in the Continuing Resolution.  Boehner bristled at the resulting government shutdown but spun it to point out that the Obama Administration would not compromise.



The reality is that Cruz exposed the game.  Boehner wanted to usher in a Continuing Resolution which might have some limitations to Obamacare, but when it would be excised in Conference Committee before going to President Obama, Boehner could confidentially vote against the CR and claim that he fought for conservative principles. In essence, Boehner was willing to feign fighting without giving a flying flip about winning but then embrace compromise as a part of politics.

The other admission that the former Speaker made was that Boehner was a texting and golf buddy of the Donald. Washington Post Congressional reporter Paul Kane assessed that Boehner was ousted as Speaker by House Conservatives who: "a country club Republican who loved to play 18 holes of golf and drink merlot afterward while cutting deals." So someone who loved to cut deals amongst the establishment in the Cocktail Party would naturally recoil against a confrontational style of upstarts like Cruz who are principled and willing to fight.

Although Trump's over the top rhetoric during the campaign contrasts with Boehner's generally easy-going style, both relish in deal making, especially with the establishment. While in Congress, Boehner chaffed at inserting earmarks.  It will be curious if that resolution holds when former Members are allowed to lobby their former fellow lawmakers. Of course, Boehner may enjoy hitting the links at Doral Park. Maybe Boehner can improve his orange complexion along with Trump.

Senior Trump Aide Paul Manafort Reveals to RNC that Trump is Just Playing a Part Onstage

One of the virtues which Manhattan mogul Donald Trump has capitalized upon to become the front-runner in the 2016 Republican Presidential race is a perception that the blustery billionaire "tells it like it is".  Even Mark Cuban, who has had some public dust ups with the Donald, has praised Trump for giving honest answers instead of prepared answers.

Well, this straight shooting image has been impeached by a Trump Senior Aide as he wooed the RNC Rules Committee in Florida.  Paul Manafort, Trump 2016's recently named Convention Manager, told the GOP party establishment that during Phase One of the campaign, Trump is projecting an image one stage to appeal to voters. But that his image will change and a softer-side will come out.

After Trump convincingly won the New York Primary, it seems that he thought that the Trump campaign tried to implement Phase Two with a revealing NBC Today Show Townhall, in which Trump vowed to raise taxes on the rich (including himself), change the RNC Pro Life platform to make exceptions (which would please his friends at Planned Parenthood) and Trump urged North Carolina to accept Transgenders Bathrooms (because it was hurting business and not a problem).

Towards the Transgender topic, there was a firestorm on social media, and Trump relented during another friendly interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, in which Trump clarified that he believed in States' Rights. Perhaps they implemented Phase Two too soon.  Such much for a candidate to tells it like it is and does not pander to anyone.

Trump  supporters seem imbued with anger about the establishment and politicians lying to them.  This probably explains Trump's mantra against "Lyin'" Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and the new sobriquet against "Crooked" Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Trump's flip flop on transgenders in bathrooms challenges his projected anti-politically correct image as well as the perception that he stands firm. Those mesmerized in the Trump cult probably will believe whatever Trump tells them today, but it plays poorly in expanding his base, particularly for the general election.

Thoughtful primary voters have wondered about Trump's pro-life conversion.  Trump took three purportedly pro-life positions in one afternoon, including the modest proposal of punishing the aborting mother, sound like a pro-life parody from Planned Parenthood.  It was bad enough that Trump settled on the status quo, but the Trump Today Townhall creates a loophole so large that it threatens abortion on demand until parturition. Pro Lifers probably were not already keen on Trump but his vacillation on an issue of monumental proportion for the last 44 years does not project an image of thoughtfulness or stability.

As for Paul Manafort, his claim to fame was helping wrangle up delegates for President Ford in the quasi-contested 1976 convention in Kansas City.   Manafort seems to have pushed Corey Lewandowsky back to being Trump's body man (a role he relished regarding manhandling Michelle Fields). Manafort managed to keep Trump tame on social media for a fortnight and temporarily curtail insulting opponents.

But Manafort's style may be anachronistic. Forty years ago, it would have been easy to lobby the RNC's meeting without being noticed.  But when there are diffuse information platforms which reach millions at the touch of a button, this pandering would not go unnoticed.  Of course, smart phones make any off-the-record chats suspect. So Manafort's revelations were not to remain secret long.

Wooing waivering delegates may be more complicated than in the '76 campaign. If Trump needs to win more than two score of delegates for a first round victory, he does not have as much leeway as President Ford to shower favors on waivering support, as nice as golfing at Mar-a-Lago may be.  Hugh Hewitt has pointed out Paul Manafort's relative dearth of twitter contacts.  So who cares?  Well, during a contested convention in an information age when a campaign may have to immediately reach out to 2474 delegates, not being Twitter savvy is a liability.

As Manafort joined the Trump organization, a desperate plea was sent out to allies in Washington to register to become delegates.  Two problems with that missive. Firstly it was sent to Washington DC prospective delegates (which held its Caucus on March 12th) instead of Washington state.  Secondly, the email was sent the day after the deadline. Oops.

While it is unclear how much input Manafort had on Trump's decision to spend $20 million between now and the California primary on June 7th, it seems like a spending strategy from yesteryear.  As Jeb! learned in this cycle, dumping a ton of money with carpet bombing commercials may not nudge the needle up.  Trump recently hired a California campaign point person two months before the crucial Golden State primary.  Cruz has been working those fields for a year.  So earned media from friendly sites (like Fox News, Breitbart and Drudge et ali) and profligate paid media may help grease the skids but it does nothing to Get Out the Vote via organization.

Not to mention Paul Manafort experience as being a Washington lobbyist, who has some uncomfortable Saudi, Pakistani and Russian mob connections. Lobbying for foreign interests may be lucrative and par for the course for established Washington insiders, but it runs counter to a Populist, anti-establishment "Throw the bums out" mantra to "Make America Great Again".  Moreover, Manafort's cozying up to the GOP Establishment and claiming that Trump is just doing a schtick in Phase One of the campaign obliterates the aura of authenticity.

Manifort may be heralding Trump 2.0 but based on the recipe formulation, it may go over like New Coke, with customers yearning for "The Real Thing".