“He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,”
A collection of the Friday CPAC speeches that you need to see.
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) may have drawn the biggest crowd on the second day of the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday — but other speakers throughout the day held their own, courting enthusiastic conservatives and delivering strong messages.
If you missed the speeches, take a little time to catch up on the conservative message that prevailed throughout the second day of the Nation’s premier conservative gathering.
Highlight: “It’s time for a little rebellion on the battlefield of ideas.”
Highlight: “I know that mothers and fathers raise better children than governments ever will. There is something wrong when the government kidnaps children from its own family.”
Highlight: “How did it work for the Republicans nominating moderate candidates in the last two Presidential elections? They put forth candidates who keep apologizing for the principles that they say they believe in, and then they lose.”
Highlight: “If you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.” Our article on Paul’s speech.
Whether to cast the canopy of the conservative Big Tent wide enough to welcome homosexuals into the fold has largely been a non-issue at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, thanks in no small part to the controversial dis-invite of another marginal group: conservative atheists.
This year’s spat between the American Atheists and the American Conservative Union, which organizes CPAC, assured homosexual conservatives, perhaps only temporarily, a lower profile in the ongoing battle to define the territorial boundaries of organized conservatism. There’s been little coverage of any GOP-versus-the-gays controversy emanating from CPAC this year.
But that hasn’t stopped the progressive left from taking shots from afar. The Huffington Post released a predictable article today bashing CPAC’s atmosphere of alleged intolerance, carrying the flag for the subversive leftist tactics that label all conservative organizations and gatherings an exclusionary form of so-called “hate speech.”
A tiresomely disproportionate amount of ink (pixels?) gets wasted on the inclusion/exclusion argument when it comes to homosexuality in the GOP, largely because the percentage of homosexuals – both conservative and otherwise – who make up the American population is far smaller than the abundance of sensational eyeball-seeking headlines would suggest.
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.— Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered an impassioned, libertarian-flavored speech to a standing-room-only crowd of Conservative Political Action Conference attendees Friday, leaving no doubt about which CPAC speaker appeals to the broadest swath of American conservatives.
Between sporadic chants of “President Paul!” and “stand with Rand,” along with a few standing ovations, Paul purveyed a message rallying conservative Americans to the cause of liberty, which he said is under constant threat from an overreaching Federal government.
Paul asked the largely youthful gathering, “Will you, America’s next generation of liberty-lovers, will you stand and be heard?”
Paul suggested that the Nation is ready for the White House to once again be occupied by a “friend of liberty”— but he cautioned that just being a Republican isn’t enough to qualify a candidate to fit the bill.
“You may think I’m talking about electing Republicans,” said Paul. “I’m not. I’m talking about electing lovers of liberty.”
A “great President,” Paul said, would be a leader who, unlike President Obama, goes out of the way to defend civil liberties and would never stand for Constitutional abuses like indefinite detention provisions in defense bills or the National Security Agency’s warrantless data collection.
Senator Ted Cruz offered red meat to conservatives during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday. His words will doubtless keep him in the top tier of GOP Presidential contenders.
He hit on three topics crucial to rolling back tyranny and restoring Constitutional governance:
- Repealing the income tax.
- Ending the “corrupt, interlocking system” of lobbyists, lawyers and consultants that are “suckling off of Washington.”
- And the Federal Reserve.
Repealing the income tax and auditing the Federal Reserve don’t go far enough. The income tax is essential to Federal Reserve system because fiat money systems require regulation of credit and consumption. Though many people would like to see the income tax repealed, few understand what the income tax’s purpose is. (Hint: It’s not to fund the government.) I will explain this in more detail in my Monday column.
Efforts to audit the Federal Reserve cause the elites and banksters to go apoplectic. There is a reason. They want the people to remain in the dark about how the Federal Reserve is a theft system that transfers wealth from the producers and savers to the wealthy oligarchs who own government. Only one politician in the past 50 years has really understood the Fed and fought tooth and nail to expose it. He was cast by the mainstream media as a crank. But Ron Paul was a statesman.
The Conservative Political Action Conference kicked off Thursday, complete with a spate of Republican leaders and conservative sweethearts running the gamut from Tea Party-approved to nearly Democrat mainstream GOP.
To the chagrin of some of the more conservative CPAC attendees, Texas Senator Ted Cruz took the CPAC opening spot Thursday morning, speaking while more than a few CPAC visitors at the Gaylord Resort in National Harbor, Md., were still recovering from the previous night’s first-in-town excitement.
Nonetheless, Cruz delivered an impassioned speech to the conservatives in the audience, during which he urged GOP candidates to hold firm to their beliefs even when those ideas run counter to the current preferences of the Party establishment.
In what came off as a shout-out to Republicans who persevere in efforts to repeal Obamacare and make substantial cuts to the Federal budget, even when the Party leadership gives in to alleviate bad press, Cruz lamented the GOP’s adherence to the advice of political consultants in 2006, 2008 and 2012 — all years that brought devastating losses to the conservative cause.
Should Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) seek another Senate term in 2016, all that matters, perhaps, is that he’s popular in his State. But according to a new poll from the Public Policy Polling Institute, that’s about the only place he can still lay claim to broad-based voter support — and that’s on the strength of an election turnout that’s now nearly four years stale.
In fact, the Institute declared McCain the least popular Senator in the country Thursday, based on the results of a three-day phone survey carried out in late February and early March.
The Institute finds McCain is universally reviled across the party spectrum — and being a Republican doesn’t give him any real standing with most Americans who identify politically as Republicans. Only 35 percent of Arizona Republicans surveyed said they approve of the job he’s doing, compared with 55 percent who said they don’t. That barely exceeds his abysmal approval rating among Democrats and independents.
From the summary:
Only 30% of Arizonans approve of the job McCain is doing to 54% who disapprove. There isn’t much variability in his numbers by party — he’s at 35/55 with Republicans, 29/53 with Democrats, and 25/55 with independents.
While campaigning in 2008, President Barack Obama promised that Americans’ energy bills would “skyrocket” under his term. Now we know what he meant.
According to a new report by The Heritage Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) forthcoming climate change regulations for new and existing electricity generating units puts limits for carbon dioxide emissions that will “essentially prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants and force existing ones into early retirement.” The regulations call for the phasing out of coal between the years 2015 and 2038.
But the regulations will go well beyond the coal industry. Because 40 percent of U.S. electricity is produced by coal, families, manufacturers and businesses will be out more than $2 trillion over the next 25 years.
Using a derivative of the Federal government’s National Energy Model System, Heritage found that by the end of 2023, nearly 600,000 jobs will be lost, a family of four’s income will drop by $1,200 per year, and aggregate gross domestic product decreases by $2.23 trillion over the entire period of the analysis.
On one level, the struggle over Ukraine is a deadly U.S./EU/Russian game of territory, involving governments, intelligence agencies, corporations and banks.
But at a higher level, as usual, sit the elite globalist players. And their motives are different. They see every conflict as an opportunity to negotiate the aftermath.
And that negotiation produces a codified structure of cooperation between the enemies that is larger than the previous structure.
For example, there were banks and corporations (Standard Oil, ITT, IBM, etc.) who were aiding both sides in World War II. And in the aftermath, a much larger market for goods (Europe, U.S.) was created.
The U.S. government, in its European rebuilding efforts, made sure of that.
Post-World War II, Europe itself started on the road toward creating the current European Union, which is a vast bureaucracy that sits over the entire continent.
This is the globalist principle: Instigate conflicts in order to build larger cooperative structures in the aftermath. And control those cooperative structures.
That way, you put more people, land, resources and labor under the umbrella.
There is only one exception. If either of the conflicting parties, in the aftermath, refuses to build those cooperative bridges, the globalist scheme doesn’t work.
What’s the most important question that Barack Obama and his aides are wrestling with these days?
No, it’s not what they should do about the crisis in the Ukraine or how they can get Vladimir Putin to back down. Sadly for us, and all freedom-loving Ukrainians, the Russian President knows he can ignore any tough talk from the American President. Putin has concluded that Obama is all bluff and bluster. And who can blame him?
Nor are those White House aides burning the midnight oil debating how they can prevent things from degenerating even further in the Mideast. Their only hope for a peaceful solution in Syria is that Bashar Assad suffers a fatal heart attack. And that the fates (or maybe Israel) will conspire to halt Iraq’s nuclear ambitions; certainly the mullahs there don’t view American policy as a serious threat to their ambitions.
No, the single most important question occupying the Democrats these days is much closer to home. It is simply this: What can the Obama Administration do to minimize Democratic losses in the midterm elections this November?
Would you believe the accusations of a convicted felon with a lengthy criminal record who has been in and out of prison and in trouble with the law since 1982 without corroborating his story? Bent County, Colo., Undersheriff Tandy Hasser would and did when she arrested 68-year-old Fritz Sturges based solely on accusations from an officially identified “habitual felony offender” by the name of David Elmo Henry Jr.
Henry’s rap sheet is so long, it appears he seeks to get arrested for something every time he needs a free meal from a government-sponsored jail cell.
Contrasting Henry is Sturges, the true victim in this case. Sturges, an exemplary citizen with a spotless criminal record, is the type of individual who gives freely of his time and resources to worthwhile causes with no strings attached.
Two new surveys reveal something President Barack Obama and his Congressional yes-men (and women) should have known – indeed, according to some single-payer prognosticators, have known – all along: uninsured Americans, the people intended to benefit the most from Obamacare, are all but refusing to sign up for it.
As The Washington Post reported today, the two surveys – one from The Urban Institute; the other from consultants McKinsey & Co., indicate that as few as one in every ten uninsured Americans has volunteered their information, and their money, to enroll in an Obamacare plan through Federal or State-operated insurance exchanges.
“One of the surveys, by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., shows that among people who are uninsured and do not intend to get a health plan through one of the exchanges, the biggest factor is that they believe they cannot afford it,” observes the Post.
And therein lies the rub. The law requires that these people – people who aren’t eligible for Obama’s swollen new Medicaid – sign up and pay their own money for insurance they couldn’t afford, even back when it was cheaper than it’s become under Obamacare.
Ayn Rand, an avid atheist, once told William F. Buckley, a reasonably devout Catholic, that he was far too intelligent to believe in God. Both of the aforementioned names have earned a place of prominence in the modern conservative movement. But if Rand were still with us, espousing atheism alongside Objectivism, would today’s conservatives dare mention her name absent the selective-acceptance afforded by the lens of history?
American Atheists President David Silverman is probably a good person to ask.
Silverman was surprised when he received a call from American Conservative Union Executive Director Dan Schneider late last month informing him that, because of the “tone” of a quote Silverman gave to CNN, the organization’s permit to operate a booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference was officially revoked.
Silverman didn’t say that God will eventually fall out of fashion in the Republican Party and he didn’t suggest that religious conservatives are the scourge of all mankind.
“The Christian right should be threatened by us,” is what Silverman said to CNN.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), already an odd fellow amid the heady mix of conservatives and libertarians at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, knew his only reason for appearing at the event would be to pander to the few stragglers in the GOP’s anti-establishment movement gullible enough to believe whatever he had to say.
So he made a silent overture to the Constitutional crowd by tottering onstage holding a rifle. Things got awkward fast:
McConnell presented the rifle to retiring Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has chosen not to seek reelection because of ongoing cancer-related health issues. Classy, huh?
Maybe. But Coburn and everyone else in the room knew that McConnell, one of the few CPAC invitees with conservative targets on their backs, was waving that gun around as a spirit stick to assure skeptical conservative voters he’s truly one of them.
This is the same guy who called Tea Partiers “bullies” whose upstart political clout merits a punch “in the nose” from the GOP establishment.
Thankfully, the intelligence-insulting motive for McConnell’s empty gesture wasn’t lost on the internet. Here’s the most biting example we saw:
The U.S. government and the Russian government have both been forced into positions where neither one of them can afford to back down. If Barack Obama backs down, he will be greatly criticized for being “weak” and for having been beaten by Vladimir Putin once again. If Putin backs down, he will be greatly criticized for being “weak” and for abandoning the Russians that live in Crimea. In essence, Obama and Putin find themselves trapped in a macho game of “chicken” and critics on both sides stand ready to pounce on the one who backs down. But this is not just an innocent game of “chicken” from a fifties movie. This is the real deal, and if nobody backs down the entire world will pay the price.
Leaving aside who is to blame for a moment, it is really frightening to think that we may be approaching the tensest moment in U.S.-Russian relations since the Cuban missile crisis.
There has been much talk about Obama’s “red lines”, but the truth is that Crimea (and in particular the naval base at Sevastopol) is a “red line” for Russia.
From the moment Russia invaded Ukraine without so much as courtesy nod to President Barack Obama, I waited for the other shoe to drop. And then Monday, the proverbial footwear hit the deck. Far from the firestorm enveloping the suddenly Russian-controlled Crimea, the Chinese foreign ministry signaled the Chicoms’ acceptance of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian blitzkrieg. Just like that, the geopolitical village drunk has teamed up with the geopolitical village psycho. And the man who should theoretically run the town sheriff’s office was too busy defrauding his own constituents to notice.
The Chinese decision to officially overlook Putin’s decision to coldcock Ukraine in broad daylight should come as no surprise to anyone with a better understanding of global politics than the truly benighted among us (looking at you, Secretary of State John “Conflict Resolution Man” Kerry). After all, the Chinese share the same philosophical roots as Putin and the Russians. But the Chinese are vastly more dangerous to America and the free world than Putin likely fancies himself.