Yes, I support it, urge it, defend it, etc.
Stand by for the people that will use the suggestion as an excuse to demand the perfect over the good.
The primary need at this moment is for fighters. Until the majority of us understand that there is no good path forward that will require as little from of us as we have gotten into the habit of giving for the past years, we will keep being abused.
Beware of the pied pipers promising the easy path and asking you let them take care of the hard work for you. They lie, and they have brought us to this late stage in our country. Pick fighters. They will have to fight the entrenched Leftists and The Media. If you don't pick a fighter you are picking a loser.
A team like that is unstoppable. Ted Cruz and that team have my support
I'm for this. The only suggestion I have is that we need some muscle to back us up.
Think: The Bundy confrontation in Nevada. What gave it traction was the Second Amendment and citizens with some common sense. (NO, that's not an oxymoron).
We have to play to win, not to be all nicey-nice. If we hurt some feelings, step on some toes, rub some people the wrong way — that would be a good thing, an indicator that we are on the correct path.
Learn Alinsky's playbook and if we do not adapt some of the strategies we can at least develop counter-measures for when the socialist dems are playing dirty.
Back to the "some muscle" thought: how far do we want to take this? Answer: all the way, whatever it takes.
The Black Panthers standing around the polling places, flexing and scaring folks? Pshaw, we can do the same.
Wow, what of they see us? Oh, what if they want to scuffle? Bring it on. If the police step in? Um, depends on if they remain impartial or take sides.
We need people that are willing to stand up, draw the line and defend it. Just like in Nevada.
I have a hunch that many state governments will offer no unjust opposition. They will be our allies.
It is perfect. It would work. It would bring back American. Therefore it cannot and will not be allowed. Jeb Bush probably cannot win the presidency for the Republicans, therefore he must be their candidate. The crazy commie bitch, oops, I mean Hillary will be bad for America, therefore she must be the Democrat candidate. If you think I am wrong then you don't understand what is happening to us.
With a line-up like that the regressives would shit their pants. It would be joyous to watch, - at a distance of course.
I'd be tempted to vote for the first time in my life, with that line up.
Trey Gowdy - Att'y General
Mark Levin - W.H. Press Secretary
Also important, because that last bit is critical: they campaign as a team - each against their opposite number in the present administration - from Day One. So instead of the typical campaign comprised of one figurehead frantically trying to multitask and articulate the corrections in the offing all by his lonesome, you have an entire offensive line, all simultaneously broadcasting a coordinated, multi-faceted message with overwhelming force.
Watch how fast the opposition tries to mimic this arrangement. Watch the media scramble frantically to dish dirt on a dozen public figures.
I like the ideology, I'm less sure that those people have the other qualifications needed to fill the positions.
And we have to start building up a database on the media to throw in their faces when they try to play gotcha with our team. Be ready to say "Funny you never asked Obama that in the whole of his two terms." Also, be ready to point out contradictions and contrasts in what oppo candidates said about Obama when they said he was the savior... before he became radioactive, which he will be by 2016. Think in the future. Start gathering the money quotes about Global Warming that you can use: that train is picking up speed toward a bridge that is out!
The above are a great group. And each one of the department heads indicated has a depth of field (human material) to choose from to fill the vacancies that he will create. I can see the economy explode with enthusiasm and our enemies shudder in horror. The American people are ready for Americans to take the reins again.
@chuck - Americans have been conditioned by decades of intrusive, extra-constitutional federal overreach to see the federal government - erroneously - as the supreme response to every social issue imaginable. In that broken mindset, we then essentially demand unreal perfection from those elected or appointed to positions of federal authority. This is actually a huge part of the overarching problem facing the US: NO ONE has the qualifications necessary to manage all of the areas into which the federal government has insinuated itself and, as such, the federal government is virtually guaranteed to fail - at least in terms of working toward the liberty, prosperity, security and happiness of American citizens.
So I think the great insight Loudon's recommendation provides is the idea that the folks listed are likely to be most suited to reducing the influence of their respective areas of (federal) government. Eliminating the EPA, for instance, doesn't take expertise, per se; it merely requires the fortitude to see the action through.
The best support is to TALK, NOW! to your neighbors, church-friends, co-workers, people everywhere. And CHALLENGE your neighbors, friends, and others who work for the government. CHALLENGE them to tell you where the line is drawn for them.
ASK them if they'll support their benefactor coming after you for your beliefs, your speech, your opinions. Ask them now. Get a clear answer. Have that convo. Put down the smart phone and interact like a human being. They're not going to persecute phones, they're going to jail human beings.
J. Christian Adams might also be worth considering for Attorney General.
This'll not only gather the base, it'll exceed the Reagan Coalition in terms of attracting crossover votes from Dems. I'll also guarantee a surprisingly large percentage of minorities will go for this ticket.
Why? "Strong Horse" concept, coupled with the idea of voting FOR a positive, for a change.
I'll work my ass off for a ticket like this one.
Sunk New Dawn
Yeah, yeah, sure. You had me going until that last part.
After those 'founding fathers' you promise to emulate won the revolution, didn't those very guys (with the exception of Jefferson, I suppose) hijack a constitutional convention to replace the Confederacy of sovereign states with a powerful centralized state, then promptly march troops against a bunch of their own citizens in Pennsylvania for protesting unjust taxes? Are those the 'founding fathers' you want us to be nostalgic about? Because it's their ideological sons you now promise to save us from.
MATTIS at the Department of War.
The best defense is a good offensive.
Mattis: I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all.
All in for this team.
So everyone here is willing to overlook the fact that Ted Cruz, newly risen star that he is, is not a natural-born citizen? That little clause is as constitutional as the 1st Amendment. It has never been clarified - but we all do know that the phrase is unique and does not mean simply "born a citizen".
Yes we need someone like Ted - someone aggressive and honorable. But please, let's not complicate things by doing our own version of overlooking critical requirements.
It's a good concept, but it has negatives - and you're still thinking much too narrowly. The Democrats don't do this, because they already have a bigger team, most of whom are on the public payroll one way or another. Also, they don't need the same kind of collaborationist defense, which is what this represents.
GvdL's proposal might help, but it has real downsides that must be planned for, and no-one here should doubt for a second that it reflects a form of weakness not strength. Perhaps less weakness than electing collaborators, but still weakness. For instance - putting up candidate teams creates the potential for weak links (it isn't about finding dirt on 20 - it's about finding the 1 you can spin the best). And the human dynamics are such that you're encouraging situations in which people make statements and end up in fights that the main candidate didn't pick. It's a bit different when you actually are President.
It should probably be possible to do some Negative Tree Branching exercises and work out some of these kinks. But its narrowness of scope is not fixable that way. Ultimately, we will begin to step back from tyranny when there is a similar level of organizational game below the candidate level. Ray Van Dune illustrates just 1 of the 1,000 or so facets required:
"And we have to start building up a database on the media to throw in their faces when they try to play gotcha with our team. Be ready to say "Funny you never asked Obama that in the whole of his two terms." Also, be ready to point out contradictions and contrasts in what oppo candidates said about Obama when they said he was the savior... before he became radioactive, which he will be by 2016. Think in the future. Start gathering the money quotes about Global Warming that you can use: that train is picking up speed toward a bridge that is out!"
Putting enough of those facets in place means a funded Activist Class with accompanying infrastructure, built (and probably funded) at the local level in Red strongholds.
I must have missed the implied immigration policy here. I assume it's open borders? So you're still broke and screwed. Say hello to President Hillary.
Thank you Tina for pointing out....not that Cruz is a bad guy...(he isn't), or that he isn't perfect (he isn't...but who the heck is)...but that "Two wrongs do not make (it) right!!! Cruz is not a natural born citizen....and for all the legitimate concerns about the current asshat in the oval office...do you think for a New York minute they (the progs) would not jump on this?
We must not sink to there level. As far as the rest of the team goes...yeah that just might work. I would also argue for a strong Sec Def...who would do their level best to erase the last 30-40 years of social engineering which has gone on in our military. That and kick out the majority of boot lickers at the one star an above levels at the Pentagon. But the last may be asking for too much...still one can dream.
"Mark Levin - W.H. Press Secretary"
Happy Hunting, it's Journo Season!
After all the strategies are set and the policies are agreed upon, we still need some muscle. None of the commenters have addressed this.
I am not some wingnut running around with guns and militia members and spoiling for a fight against "the Man" or whatever it is called these days. Um, how 'bout Leviathan?
I am 67, got cancer, had my share of lethal force encounters, had my share of violence. I'm not advocating a lynch mob or a putsch, a violent overthrow of government.
I am saying that beyond the theory and planning and campaigning there will be violent opposition to many of our goals. C'mon folks, any of you been in the military or Law Enforcement, set me straight. I don't think we can make this omelet without breaking eggs.
Look at Bundy's situation; look at activists opposing the placement of illegal aliens in southern California. First wave, the feds got stopped by protesters in the streets.
"We're being told that federal Marshals or ICE will be here in the next few days and that they are bringing riot gear,"
What are we going to do when we meet with this kind of opposition? What will we do when Black Panthers gather around polling stations and glower and flex and look all mean?
If a few of the young Panthers start swinging or shooting what will we do? Don't assume the police are on our side.
We fancy ourselves the new forefathers, uh? Not without blood being spilled and people being broken.
It is naïve to think that the socialists, er, "progressives" will only play paper games with any group that opposes them.
I'll support this. Virginia and Florida.
Support all the way! Don't stop.
I would support this. By naming cabinet members in advance, an unmistakable signal of policy is provided. Bold and never done before.
So, every last comment here approves of cementing the exponential expansion of administrative government as long as there is a "conservative" figurehead at each station.
Whatever is not eliminated from government will follow the natural gravity of government. It is cretinous to think otherwise.
So, except for joel & james wilson, the previous commentors are a bunch of fookin arse'oles.
CAN YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND SATIRE?
A DUMBASS LIKE CRUZ, INELIGIBLE FROM THE GITGO TO BE PRESIDENT, MARRIED TO A GOLDMAN SACHS EXEC?
WTF is wrong with you people?
Hope to not be misunderstood.
Lets hear your brilliant idea, itor.
itor, you just named yourself.
You talk like a sausage.
This is what I mean when I say "muscle". Perhaps I should have said "courage". We need some people that can do what this guy did:
"But the oldest participant in the war was Samuel Whittemore, who fought in an early skirmish at the age of 80. I'll let Wikipedia take it from here:
Whittemore was in his fields when he spotted an approaching British relief brigade under Earl Percy, sent to assist the retreat.
Whittemore loaded his musket and ambushed the British from behind a nearby stone wall, killing one soldier.
He then drew his dueling pistols and killed a grenadier and mortally wounded a second.
By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment reached his position; Whittemore drew his sword and attacked.
He was shot in the face, bayoneted thirteen times, and left for dead in a pool of blood.
He was found alive, trying to load his musket to fight again. He was taken to Dr. Cotton Tufts of Medford, who perceived no hope for his survival.
However, Whittemore lived another 18 years until dying of natural causes at the age of 98."
Borrowed from http://kottke.org/13/08/the-surprising-ages-of-the-founding-fathers-on-july-4-1776
He was found alive, trying to load his musket to fight again.
I'd be happy to have that on my tombstone.
Yes,it sounds good to me,Ted . Most Americans just want our country back,Men or Women ,that love and fear God,and love The United States Of America,!!!!
Plenty of room on this ticket to wiggle the right folks into the right positions. Once that's done, whether I agreed with it 100% or only 51%, I'd work work work to get them elected and I'll bet I'd be shoulder to shoulder with about 10 million others. You can gamble and lose on one man, and we did with Romney. The big ticket, the big team, strength and resiliency; it's like a dream come true.
I've been saying this for over a year now... Except a this point I'd want Trey Gowdy as AG. As someone suggested upthread, Mark Levin would make an awesome Press Secretary.
Sent on to Cruz campaign folks :)
Oh. Hell. Yes.
This is a great idea that I'd proudly knock on doors to support.
I have been dreaming of John Bolton as Secretary of State for years. Time to slam the door in the mooselimb's face. And give our allies a break.
My brilliant idea?
It’s really more of an epiphany. First, recognize that government cannot provide you ANYTHING it has not taken by force from others. Then, observe that ALL government throughout history exists not to provide you with “rights” – it cannot - or protect the rights given by your Creator – it will not. Government exists to grow the State – first, foremost, always, and DEMANDS that you obey the State and support it.
This asinine fawning over some wet dream team of career politicians is simply sickening. Really now, it calls to mind the progressives lament – that communism hasn’t worked only because the right people aren’t in control.
Voting for ANY of these demonstrates YOUR endorsement of killing people around the world, stealing the livelihoods and wealth of BILLIONS through enslavement to a system of outright evil – as ALL government is evil. And most unnecessary.
So, you good with championing the death, financial destruction, & enslavement of others in your name? And supporting the UN? Really?
“The pagan view of the universe is that it is static, motionless, limited, and controlled by an Authority. The pagan view of man is that all individuals are, and by their nature should and must be, controlled by some Authority outside themselves.”
(Rose Wilder Lane – Discovery of Freedom)
“I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.”
(H. L. Mencken)
And, has it never occurred to you that regardless of who is in office, there are never any substantive changes to policy? That despite what a politician rails against as a candidate, once in office those issues are simply brushed aside, replaced by some other talking points? Why is that?
As example, consider the curious case of St Ronald the Fraudulent – as candidate he promised to END the Dept of Education (he grew it), to ABOLISH the Dept of Energy(he grew it), promised to cut the size of government (he grew it), promised to end illegal immigration (he did not), yet granted amnesty to millions, promised to cut the deficit (he grew it, instead) oh yeah – he restricted firearm ownership as well with passage of the 1986 GCA. And yet the unthinking adorn him with the mantle of small government laissez faire conservative. Yet recall he famously boasted that he never left the democratic party.
Every rule, policy, law, or regulation creates a constituency, determined to keep and grow its’ advantage.
And that is among the many reasons that attempts to reform government are doomed to failure. One would have as much success attempting to reform contents of a septic tank. Limited government is simply a contradiction, a myth for school children and the hopelessly naïve.
Succumbing to the siren sound of “wait till 2014! Wait till 2016!” belongs with “you go my favorite sports team! You go!” and keeps the forgetful and easily distracted occupied with nothing of substance. Because the outcome will change nothing. Do examine how the present occupier of the WH really changed nothing with regard to Bush’s policies; stylistically perhaps, substantively not.
“Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule”
"Mark Levin - W.H. Press Secretary"
Get off the phone, you big dope!!
Thank you Chas for Samuel Whittemore's call to courage.
At age 80 attacks with musket, pistol, and sword, an enemy brigade -- by himself!
Get's shot in the face, bayoneted 13 times, and then insists on living to the age 98, then dying of natural causes. The natural causes probably under-exertion -- shooting the enemy and getting stabbed 13 times rather than continuing his more strenuous farming.
Helluva alternative to Obamacare-less, Medicare, and Medicaid.
What a guy. What an American. He gives meaning to the term "Let's roll!" as a true role model.