jump to navigation

Texas Voters: Beware Beto O’Rourke and Conservative Complacency June 29, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, cultural marxism, Dallas Diocese, error, Father Rodriguez, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
trackback

Years ago, Father Michael Rodriguez first came to notoriety outside the El Paso area through testimony he gave to the El Paso City Council against an administrative act – over and above the expressed will of the voters – to extend spousal benefits to same-sex “partners” of city employees.  This was after voters had explicitly rejected such extension, in spite of the fact that the very progressive diocesan administration and, it must be said, perverse clergy of the Diocese of El Paso virtually unanimously supported the measure, at least tacitly.

Father Rodriguez was on the receiving end of a very nasty, calumniating attack by an El Paso councilman after he had already given his witness.  The councilman was Beto O’Rourke, who is now running for US Senate against Ted Cruz.  Judging by the number of yard signs, bumper stickers, and other endorsements I’ve seen around, O’Rourke probably poses the biggest threat to a Republican senatorial candidate in Texas in 30 years.

Reader Dismas is also from El Paso, and knows O’Rourke all too well.  Here is his analysis:

You remember when Fr. Rodriguez addressed city council. In a rare event, O’Rourke, a councilman, called him back up to the podium to berate him. Here is the video

Basically O’Rourke is very charismatic. He reminds one of Bobby Kennedy. I was at that meeting but could not access the podium to respond from a medical point of view. He was absolutely wrong and egregiously so, but it would have taken just a bit of medical insight to help people see why he was dead wrong on both counts. I tried to submit an editorial in response and the newspaper refused to print it.

You name the issue. Forcing the homosexual agenda…fully on board, driving the train. Abortion? Full speed ahead. Open borders – all aboard. What else? You name it.

This guy is bad news. Much slicker than Maxine Waters, but fully in the same camp.

There are powerful forces behind this guy.

He is a stealth kinda’ guy in the same way as Obama, who came out of nowhere and the next thing you know he is President.

This guy is very bad news and a serious threat to the nascent recovery this nation has undergone since Jan 20, 2017.  If he could take out one of the most stalwart conservatives in the Senate, it would be a serious blow to any hope of building a wall or reversing the always rising progressive tide.

So far, O’Rourke has out-raised Ted Cruz 2:1 in campaign funding.  The Cruz Campaign noted this recently:

Politico is reporting that my opponent is raising a lot of money and it’s worse than we thought. They are reporting that he has raised $3.5 million in the last TWO MONTHS. That is a ton of money.

To be clear, they are not raising money just to turn Texas blue, they are raising that money to take our shared conservative values out of Washington. My opponent has the full backing of Hollywood elites and far-left liberals.

My opponent is getting support from people like Rosie O’Donnell, Sarah Jessica Parker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Chuck Schumer. They don’t represent Texas values.

This is why I am asking for your help. It’s no secret that my campaign is being out-raised by a 2-to-1 margin. I need your help to close the gap on donations. Anything you can contribute will help tremendously.

As, I’ve told you before, I am counting on grassroots supporters like you. I don’t have Hollywood backing my campaign. I have you, and am always grateful for your support.

The money is starting to have an effect. Recent polls show that this race is getting closer and closer. The time to fight back is now. We need to do all we can now before it’s too late.

Look I know these kinds of ads come out all the time but a) this is Texas and b) I think this is one of the more serious threats to make a major surprise move to turn a red seat blue.  If you are local to Texas or just concerned about the direction this nation is headed, you might consider giving some money to Cruz’ campaign.  I have no compunction saying he is one of the top 2 or 3 most reliably conservative/pro-morality senators on Capitol Hill.

And keep a watch out for O’Rourke.  As Dismas noted, this one is very dangerous, has major backing and ambitions, and will probably be back even if he doesn’t win this round.

Advertisements

Comments

1. X-opher - June 29, 2018

Well, crap. Now I am quite concerned. I thought maybe I was just noticing a statistically anomalous number of the gross minority of vehicles and houses bearing Beto stickers and signs…Are you saying they really MIGHT constitute a large number? SALTY LANGUAGE!!!

How about the gubernatorial race? How’s that looking?

2. Camper - June 29, 2018

An excellent scoop, Tantum. Now (half seriously) we just need to find a sponsor for you.

skeinster - June 30, 2018

Or a Barnhardt Stale Big Mac initiative…

Camper - July 1, 2018

Haven’t heard of that one…

3. Baseballmomof8 - June 29, 2018

Been getting those emails from Cruz (to donate). I’m not in TX – but I will donate. Thanks for the heads up.

4. skeinster - June 30, 2018

Glad to see you’re blogging again!
Will pass the word on this, donate and get a Cruz sticker..
The e-mail I have for you isn’t working, would you please send me the current one? I told Mrs. T I would write you on a topic, and now that we are settled, I have some time…
Thanks & love to you all.

5. reader - July 2, 2018

With a Supreme Court seat opening up, too bad Trump can’t wait until after the election and if Cruz loses, appoint him as a justice. I believe the Court opens its session in October.

6. Raddie - July 2, 2018

I am sorry, but Teddy is NOT a Conservative in the fold of what “Conservative” is to mean in a Catholic sense.

As for the past 10-15 years, I will find a 3rd Party Catholic and a true Conservative to vote for as to vote for the lesser of two evils still = Evil.

Deo Gratias!!

Camper - July 4, 2018

Ted Cruz voted for Chuck Schumer’s horrendous giveaway budget within the last six months, but other than that, he is about as good as it gets. If you’re in Texas, he is the only reasonable candidate for whom to vote.

7. LaGallina - July 2, 2018

Yikes! I had no idea. Thanks for letting us know.

8. Randy the Redneck - July 3, 2018

Well, goll-dang it. I, too, deplore a situation where we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. That is upon us obviously by design. I sure cannot fault someone for not playing along with that – I almost always voted third-party for many years for the same reason. Until that gap between evil and really, really evil became so wide. At that point I began to hold my nose and use my vote to prevent awful stuff as opposed to actually voting FOR something.

This particular senatorial race is such a situation, where the difference is alarmingly clear, even if the lesser of the evils is not a Catholic saint-in-the-making or a bona-fide conservative as we would prefer.

I encourage folks to study up a bit on what is going on here and understand the urgency.

Raddie - July 3, 2018

Oh ya, that line of thinking has returned us to The Ages of Faith and the Social Reign of Christ the King…. Politics is not the solution, but right Politics is the result of the answer. ‎

As Pope Pius IV said (paraphrase): Until Christ is returned to His Throne in both the Public AND Private matters of Man, then and only then will true freedom be known. 

The Church has never asked us to choose Evil no matter the “degree” nor the consequences of the Society at large doing so.  ‎

Voting lesser of 2 evils is logically and morally vacuous:

http://catholicism.org/lesser-of-two-evils.html

Tim - July 6, 2018

“Voting lesser of 2 evils is logically and morally vacuous:”

Oh yeah, if most Catholics had followed your advice we’d be living under Queen Hitlary. No thanks!
TRUMP/PENCE 2020!!
MAGA!!!

http://catholicism.org/lesser

9. Camper - July 4, 2018

St. Thomas said that it is moral and sometimes wise to choose the lesser of two evils in politics. I think in other things it might never be acceptable, but in politics, it is. The trick is knowing which evil to vote for. Ted Cruz’ budget vote this year was a major flaw that revealed him to be a big spender, but the reality is that the president was behind the horrible budget deal and anything else passing was unlikely. If I had been in Congress, I would not have voted for the budget deal, but Ted Cruz is in the senate and I recommend that people in Texas vote for him. He supported a flat tax, for goodness’ sake.

10. Camper - July 4, 2018

Looks like we don’t need to get our wallets out. A poll as of May 30th shows Cruz leading O’Rourke by 11 points, 50 to 39 percent.

X-opher - July 4, 2018

It’s still early. I believe this qualifies as the “complacency” that Tantum was warning against. If you have the money to contribute and want Cruz to remain in office, stay alert. O’Rourke is likely to close that gap.

Camper - July 5, 2018

Maybe, but maybe not. Eleven points is a very big gap and almost nobody these days is persuaded in politics. Politicians have no problem asking for money even if they don’t need it very much. There were some polls saying that Cruz was only up three points, but those days might as well be long gone.

11. c matt - July 5, 2018

I don’t find Ted’s vote on budget matters to be as disconcerting as his reflexive, unthinking support for every single thing the state of Israel does. Heck, it would not surprise me if he would vote for awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Israeli pilots who fired on the USS Cole.

Camper - July 5, 2018

The vote on the budget should concern us deeply. This country is committing suicide in a lot of ways and debt is one of them. We are destroying this nation, and there seems to be no remedy for its coming financial problems.

c matt - July 6, 2018

There is a remedy, but the central banking cartels of the world won’t let us use it.

Camper - July 5, 2018

By the way, I don’t know much about Israel. Do you think Israel ever deserves support? Why are you against Israel sometimes? I really don’t know much about them.

c matt - July 5, 2018

I am against Israel, as I would be against anyone, when it is wrong. Unfortunately, it is notoriously impossible to get unbiased reporting on anything wrt Israel – either it can do no right, or it can do no wrong. The USS Cole incident is an example of the “it can do no wrong” variety. Ted is solidly in the “it can do no wrong” camp. Obama, for all his many other faults, tried to be at least a little feebly objective about Israel and was excoriated for his troubles. Something about that just doesn’t seem kosher. Another example is the whole Boycott-Divest-forgot what S stands for (“BDS”) overreach. Basically criminalizing free speech against Israel. It is that kind of stuff, along with the weak budget resistance, that makes me less than enthused about ol’ Ted.

Camper - July 9, 2018

The USS Cole was the destroyer that was attacked off the coast of Yemen by terrorists. Maybe you are thinking of the USS Liberty, the American spy ship that Israel attacked while it was in the Mediterranean.

c matt - July 9, 2018

Sorry, yes – the Liberty. Every military ship is a spy ship. Doesn’t make it any less a military ship, nor make it any lees an attack on a US military vessel. If Iran were to do the same today, how quickly do you think war would be declared and Iran attacked? Yet Israel did the same and . . . (crickets).

12. Camper - July 6, 2018

Alright, but I’m not sure why it is a very important issue. If Arabs and Jews in the Middle East kill each other, why should I care? The main thing I dislike about Israel of which I know is that they get $3 billion in military aid annually. Ted Cruz’ crazy budget spent far more than 1000 times that.

c matt - July 6, 2018

The reason(s) we should care:

1. It is not just Arabs and Jews fighting each other – it is Americans fighting on behalf of Jews(and Saudis) against other Arabs (e.g, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya and, coming soon to a new theater of operations, Iran) and Russians fighting on behalf of certain Arabs, with the Chinese keeping a watchful eye from the sidelines.

2. With Israeli nukes in the mix, it is everybody’s problem.

3. If it were just Arabs and Jews killing each other in the Middle East, we would probably not care, but for the oil reserves – not just as a resource itself, but for the political/economic control it gives (e.g., the petro-dollar, which is the only thing keeping US currency afloat for the moment).

4. I would be much in favor of taking a Swiss approach to the Middle East, neither hindering nor supporting any particular faction, but that just does not seem to be in the cards.

Camper - July 6, 2018

Are you referring to the fact that we bankrolled the Syrian rebellion that tried to overthrow Assad? That was a policy of the Obama Administration and in fact of Cankles herself. That was wrong, according to St. Thomas, and of course, from the “Swiss” perspective to which you refer.

The fact that oil is priced in dollars is not exactly what keeps the dollar afloat, though surely it is an important factor. America is still the world’s largest economy and its currency is completely liquid. The Euro and the Yuan are not acceptable alternatives, the first because it is a frankenstein synthesis supported by economies up to their eyelids in debt, and the second because it is not freely convertible.

Maybe I am very naive, but I still do not see why America, barring the intervention of American Jews and their American political allies in support of Israel in the halls of Congress, could maintain a mere cooperation with Israel. We could back Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arabs, and ignore the rest. I know Iran supports terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas. I guess the Arabs, irrespective of their politics, are always asking us to back the Palestinians. Please feel free to elaborate.

c matt - July 6, 2018

As to the petrodollar, imagine what would happen if Mid East oil was free to trade in any currency – that is a country would not have to convert to dollars first and then buy the oil from the Saudis? That was Nixon’s great accomplishment in the 70s – he cut a deal with the Saudis and their satellites to accept only dollars in exchange for security. If other countries could pay for Saudi oil in their own currency, who would want dollars? In fact, this would be better for the world – it would force countries to minimize corruption in order to stabilize their currency. It would create a demand for those stable currencies (as opposed to creating the demand through force of arms as in the current situation – use dollars or we blow you up, essentially). Under a relatively free system, the Swiss would clean up.

The question isn’t “why can’t we cooperate with Israel,” but “why should we?” No problem cooperating with Israel, or any other country, when it is in our interest and solely for our interest. The only interest we have in the ME is to keep oil producing countries producing oil and providing it on an open market. Don’t know what you mean by “back” those countries. Unfortunately, some half-baked evangelicals believe we owe some biblical duty to recreate the third temple to hasten Christ’s return or some such rot. That is not in our national interest, and goes far beyond “backing.”

Camper - July 7, 2018

I didn’t realize that that was the reason oil is traded in dollars. I think that that was one of the very few good things Nixon did, and in a way, it was still bad! I wish we had had the political will to finish Vietnam. We lost the war through lack of political will. Yes, it was expensive, but anybody who has been to South Korea can tell you that it is a beautiful country, despite its flaws. South Vietnam could have been in pretty good shape today if not for the anti-war movement, which lost a war that we had already won.

c matt - July 6, 2018

Overthrowing Assad goes back farther than Obama. Possibly Clinton, certainly started with Dubya, and carried on through Obama and, despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, continued with Trump (at least Obama seemed somewhat half-assed about it, and Trump may have been forced into to it and I get the impression he would have ended it yesterday if free to do so). The US has attacked various regimes for various spurious reasons at least going back to Johnson, if not earlier. Bankrolling terrorists to overthrow regimes is a time honored Republicrat tradition. Even the targets don’t change much, only the rhetoric – Republicans complain when Democrat president does it, and Democrats complain when a Republican president does it. It’s all part of the show, as they say.

Camper - July 7, 2018

I’m very glad that conducted a polite discussion over a controversial topic. I guess it helps a great deal that we both thought a lot of Ron Paul. Do you ever go on the Ron Paul forums?

c matt - July 9, 2018

I occasionally read his pieces on Lew Rockwell, but I don’t watch many of his videos since I prefer reading vs. viewing/listening (it’s easier for me to digest what is written rather than spoken, less likely to miss something).

Camper - July 6, 2018

I guess part of the trouble is that Israel is a lightening rod for criticism. I think they agree with just war theory, and they do have a relatively humane society, so congressmen feel like they are victims who need to be supported against bullying from Palestinians and Iranians.

c matt - July 6, 2018

Yes it is. Some deserved, some not. But just because they may get unfairly criticized sometimes does not mean they don’t deserve criticism when it is warranted. Shooting protesters in the back as they are trying to remove other protesters who they have shot does seem to fall a wee bit short of “just war” and probably warrants some criticism. Jailing that girl for slapping a soldier who just shot her brother to death also seems a bit less than kosher. The continued displacement and settlement building that has been found to be illegal numerous times, yet nothing changes seems to warrant criticism as well (and even some Israeli factions themselves criticize it).

Congressmen support it because getting on the wrong side of AIPAC is career suicide.

Camper - July 7, 2018

I might take issue with some of your criticisms. I actually might support the Israeli government for jailing a woman who slapped a soldier. The trouble is that Israel is so dangerous that troops have to keep the peace, which is not the custom in America. A woman who slaps a policeman in America for an atrocity is one thing. It is another thing entirely in Israel, where military units probably cannot afford distractions. Even in America, police do not want physical abuse. Slapping may have been appropriate with the Israeli soldier, but it is still probably against the rule of law.

c matt - July 6, 2018

Another:

5. Blowback – the kind that Ron Paul got ridiculed for exposing, despite his 100% accuracy. They may hate our way of life, as much as we hate theirs, but they did not come over here and assassinate our leaders, bomb our cities and cut deals with puppets to exploit our resources. I can get their resentment. Remember Bush’s flypaper strategy? Yeah, except he was too stupid to know we were the flies, getting stuck over there, to the tune of billions a month (not to mention lives destroyed).

Camper - July 6, 2018

Most Americans think Bin Laden bombed New York and the Pentagon. It doesn’t get much more aggressive than that.

c matt - July 6, 2018

He very well may have (don’t know – they sure look like controlled demolition 😉 ). 9/11 was the “blowback”. Had we not installed our Shaw, and generally mucked about in the middle east for the prior 40 some odd years leading up to it, we would mostly have been left alone, and the Arabs ire would have remained focused on Israel. Sucks for Israel, I suppose. But for some reason, Israel keeps agitating that we get involved on their behalf, and then we wonder why Arabs hate us. Must be rocket science.

Camper - July 7, 2018

The King of Iran was called the “Shah”.

13. c matt - July 6, 2018

Sad thing is, having said all the above, Ted is still probably the better candidate.

14. Camper - July 6, 2018

It’s nice that you supported Ron Paul, but did you know that he wanted to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? I talked to a Catholic who was once a lieutenant in the Marines. He said that his captain, a male, sexually harrassed him back in the late 1990s! He got out of the Marines. Homosexuality in the military ruins unit cohesion, as I am sure you would agree.

c matt - July 6, 2018

Homosexuality ruins cohesion anywhere. I never said Ron Paul was perfect, and Libertarians/Libertarianism has its won weaknesses. He was right on the blow-back issue.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: