HAPPY EASTER FROM SOLIDPRINCIPLES.COM!
HAPPY EASTER FROM SOLIDPRINCIPLES.COM!
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter — who used her talk show platform in the last presidential election cycle to campaign hard for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — has taken up the mantra once again, calling on Republicans to give the failed White House bidder another shot in 2016.
She made the suggestion during a discussion on Sean Hannity’s radio show while speaking of her new book, “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican.”
Ms. Coulter also addressed the question of Mr. Romney’s shortcomings by saying that his 2012 loss wasn’t entirely his fault.
I think too much blame, not only in this case, but on many cases and this is an important point, is put on the candidates for not being the attack dogs,” she said, Breitbart.com reported. “That is the job of people in the media, the conservative media, because the candidate himself — the Democrats don’t have to worry about this because they have the entire mainstream media being their opposition research and attack dogs and defenders. And so the candidate, like Obama, can just look charming and laugh things up and he comes out and says, ‘Oh, I think it’s terrible they’re attacking Sarah Palin’s family.’ “
A core criticism of Mr. Romney — at least from the tea party types and from many on the right — was that he wasn’t conservative enough.
Ms. Coulter’s Thursday campaign for Mr. Romney wasn’t that shocking, given that she made similar statements earlier in the month during an interview on MofoPolitics.com with Howie Carr
Then, she said in answer to a question about who she supports for president: “I’m planning on giving Mitt Romney a little more time to rest — flying out, kidnapping him and depriving him of sleep, food and water until he agrees to run again. … I think he was a fantastic candidate.”
During that same interview, Ms. Coulter also called Sen. Ted Cruz “a disaster on illegal immigration,” RealClearPolitics.com reported.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/18/ann-coulter-takes-mitt-romney-president-chant-agai/#ixzz2zMKwLsdh
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
BY: CATHERINE hERRIDGE
New allegations are raising additional questions about former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell’s involvement in crafting the administration’s flawed narrative on the Benghazi attack, ahead of his scheduled testimony next week on Capitol Hill.
Morell is set to testify publicly for the first time on Wednesday about his role in crafting the controversial Benghazi “talking points,” which initially blamed a protest for the deadly attack.
The former acting director, and deputy director, was called to testify to explain potentially conflicting testimony he gave Congress about the talking points and the administration’s role. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers told reporters this week — before news of his retirement was made public — that the rare, open session should “allow Mr. Morell to answer the questions that we know many people have about what he knew and when he knew it.”
But another detail is raising questions. According to a source with first-hand knowledge of events, during a secure video conference call two days after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack, Morell told the team in Libya that there was intelligence a demonstration preceded the assault. With that statement, Morell apparently dismissed the reporting of U.S. personnel on the ground, including the CIA’s top officer, known as the chief of station.
“We’ve done a forensic on that event. We never found a reference to demonstrations from individuals who were on the ground,” Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., told Fox News in a recent interview. Burr sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee which conducted its own investigation on Benghazi. The bipartisan findings released in January were highly critical of the State Department and the administration’s resistance to fully explain its role in the flawed talking points.
“Whether it’s the chief of station in Tripoli, whether it’s the diplomatic security, or the GRS (Global Response Team) response team that went, from day one all referrals were an attack that was underway,” the senator said.
Fox News is also told that even before the video teleconference, or VTC, the chief of station understood based on communications with CIA headquarters in Washington that the burden was on him to prove there was no demonstration.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — As Russian armed forces effectively seized control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula on Saturday, the Russian Parliament granted President Vladimir V. Putin the authority he sought to use military force in response to the deepening instability in Ukraine.
The authorization cited a threat to the lives of Russian citizens and soldiers stationed in Crimea and other parts of Ukraine, and provided a blunt answer to President Obama, who on Friday pointedly warned Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.
Even before Mr. Putin’s statement in Moscow, scores of heavily armed soldiers had tightened their grip on the Crimean capital, Simferopol, surrounding government buildings, shuttering the airport, and blocking streets, where they deployed early Friday.
Large pro-Russia crowds rallied in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donestk and Kharkiv, where there were reports of violence. In Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, fears grew within the new provisional government that separatist upheaval would fracture the country just days after civil unrest ended in the ouster of President Viktor F. Yanukovych, a Kremlin ally who fled to Russia.
READ MORE @ THE NEW YORK TIMES
By TAL KOPAN POLITICO
Sen. Ted Cruz said Thursday that Republicans have a good chance of having a “surprising” pickup in the Senate in 2014, perhaps on the scale of the 2010 sea-change election.
“I think 2014 is poised to be a very, very strong Republican year,” Cruz told a crowd of more than 150 attendees at POLITICO’s Playbook Breakfast. “I think if the election were held today, Republicans would take the Senate. … I think it is a possibility that it is an election year on the order of the magnitude of 2010.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/ted-cruz-playbook-breakfast-104033.html#ixzz2uXfC8S4S
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
By; Richard Brookhiser WSJ.COM
Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday we mark this holiday weekend, had less leadership experience than almost any earlier president. George Washington and Andrew Jackson had been generals, several other presidents had been governors, and all the Southerners had owned plantations. They had run organizations and managed men. President Lincoln, by contrast, was a former state legislator, a one-term congressman and the senior partner of a two-man law firm; he kept his most important papers filed away in his hat.
And yet Lincoln filled the office of president so effectively that he regularly tops historians’ rankings of great presidents.
It helped, of course, that he was one of the greatest writers in the American canon—certainly the greatest ever to reach the White House (Jefferson at his best could be equally good, but his range was narrower). Leaving aside such extraordinary talents, which of Lincoln’s principles of action can guide his successors?
Cite precedent. Lincoln the lawyer was ever mindful of precedents, while Lincoln the unhappy son who never bonded with his hard-driving, un-bookish father was always looking for paternal surrogates. He found both precedents and men he could look up to in America’s founding fathers.
Lincoln’s mature career—from the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854 until his death in 1865—was, among other things, a long effort to show that his positions on the issue of slavery were those of the founders. (Lincoln wanted slavery contained and ultimately extinguished; so, he said, did they.) He hammered away at this theme in his Peoria speech in 1854, the three-hour-long oration that first laid out his ideas; he returned to it repeatedly in his 1858 debates with the Illinois Democrat Stephen Douglas ; and he spent half the Cooper Union Address, his New York City command performance in 1860, showing that “our fathers, who framed the government under which we live,” agreed with him. “As those fathers marked [slavery], let it be again marked,” he said, “as an evil not to be extended.”
Lincoln wanted to wrap himself in the founders’ aura—gilt by association—and he believed that they had been right about human nature, liberty and equality. He wanted to be on their side, and he wanted them on his.
Make your case. The histories of kingdoms and empires are often court histories—who whispered what to whom. So, dismayingly, is much modern political reporting: Who got to the chief of staff? How did the senator learn about this? If Saint-Simon, the chronicler of the Sun King’s Versailles, were alive today, he would have a column or a talk show.
Lincoln could play inside baseball, making deals and manipulating colleagues, when he had to. But he understood that democracies are ultimately ruled not by such little maneuvers but by the people. “Public opinion in this country,” he said bluntly in 1859, “is everything.” That means that everything depends on wooing, shaping and educating public opinion. That, in turn, requires leaders to put themselves out there. It helps, of course, if their arguments are clear and their programs sensible. But even the most brilliant philosopher statesman has to make his case.