20 votes

"I do not like this Uncle Sam. I do not like this healthcare scam." Photo of Cruz' daughters as he reads them Green Eggs & Ham


http://youtu.be/o9EX2XkpPgE

PHOTO OF CRUZ DAUGHTERS – Ted Cruz reads Green Eggs and Ham on Senate floor during filibuster http://therightscoop.com/epic-ted-cruz-reads-green-eggs-and-...

Julie Hanratty-Jacobs
• 6 hours ago

I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books!!
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker, Nan,
I do not like this, 'YES WE CAN'!!
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like their smug replies,
when I complain about their lies.
I do not like this kind of hope,
I do not like it, NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!
http://therightscoop.com/epic-ted-cruz-reads-green-eggs-and-...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Do You Know What You Are Not Hearing? And Why You Should be Mad.

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Mr. PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this (supremacy / Sweeping) clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART" of the Constitution,

>>>>>(N)OR to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN) "MAY" AFFECT the interests of the CITIZENS OF THE UNION AT LARGE " ---

---"....I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution.

If they should be about to "PASS A LAW" in consequence of this clause, they MUST pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",but can by "NO MEANS" DEPART from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

The Welfare Clause limits the Federal Government to collecting Taxes for ONLY NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE NATIONAL DEBT IN CONSEQUENCE OF THAT POWER - READ IT - SAME DAY CONVENTION:

"Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of "providing for" the "GENERAL WELFARE", supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and "extension of", the powers granted in the "other clauses".

He endeavored to show the committee that it "ONLY" "empowered" "Congress" to make "SUCH LAWS" as would be necessary to "enable" them to pay the "PUBLIC DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE"; >that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the general power of legislation", but to the >>>"PARTICULAR" POWER>>>> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, FOR THE >>>"PURPOSE" of paying the DEBTS and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE", that is, that they could "raise" (ONLY) "AS MUCH MONEY" (ONLY) as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", in >>>>"CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER".

The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained "NO new grant of power". To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in "ALL" "well-regulated communities" (STATE, COUNTY), determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" >>>"WILL" declare it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" (THEMSELVES) will have a "RIGHT" to "DECLARE" it "VOID". Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence. The power of providing for the general defence "ONLY EXTENDS" to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts,

But, says he, our "only" defence against "oppressive laws" consists in the "virtue of our representatives".

>>>>>>>"This was misrepresented".

If I understand it right, >>>>"NO" "NEW" POWER CAN BE "EXERCISED"."

----

NONE! EVER! NOT EVEN RATIFYING IT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A "MEANS"

THAT IS WHAT MAKES US A REPUBLIC UNDER AN ORIGINAL COMPACT AND NOT A DEMOCRACY!

... And You hear Rand Paul whimper and say "compromise"???;

WHEN HE SHOULD BE YELLING:

GO AHEAD OBAMA & REID! PASS YOUR STUPID LITTLE BILL!

"WHEN I GET BACK TO MY STATE, WE'RE GOING WRITE A HALF PAGE POINTING OUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF IT AS JAMES MADISON DID IN THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTION AGAINST THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS AND "NULLIFY IT"!"

( Virginia Resolution in Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates )

"IT WILL ALWAYS BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS AN UNDELEGATED, ARROGATED, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, "NEW" POWER; WHICH BY THE FOUNDER'S OWN WORDS, IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED; AS "NO NEW POWER CAN BE EXERCISED, NOT EVEN BY "ONE STEP" OR BY "ANY MEANS"!"

Read it:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

It is so nauseating, that throughout the filibuster's; both Ran Paul's earlier filibuster and Ted Cruise's recent one;

That they both fail to bring up the critical points of the Ratifying Conventions that simply nullify everything of these ridiculous bills entail, and fail to proclaim that they will work with their state governors to simply stomp them out at the state level and borders;

Yet they use "weak nothing filler" such as "Green Eggs and Ham" and repetitive "whining" or "oh, it will hurt people".

Your efforts would have been better served, while spending so much time on the floor, to "actually READ the Ratifying Conventions (6-16-1788 especially) and other Documents such as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, Rights of the Colonists and John Locke that show how "LITTLE power the federal government has" outside the ORIGINAL COMPACT; Throw in Federalist #46 if they don't "get it";...

AND ACTUALLY "EDUCATE THE PUBLIC"! WHAT A REMARKABLE IDEA!

Get Some Spine.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

5 Critical Founders Documents to Read:
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf

Mr. MADISON. "Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I cannot comprehend that the "POWER OF LEGISLATING" over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED" "TEN MILES SQUARE", and "MAY NOT BE MORE" than ONE MILE, will involve the dangers which he (PATRICK HENRY) apprehends.

If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the LAST THING that would enter into the mind of ANY MAN to grant "EXCLUSIVE ADVANTAGES", in a >>>"VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT", to the prejudice of the COMMUNITY >>>AT LARGE. "

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Garan's picture

I can see why his kids didn't want him to read 'that' book.

I was hoping that his children-story-voice was different than his political voice.

A few minutes of his speaking voice is fine with me.
After that, his voice sounds all the same to me. Maybe a little too polished and a bit too contrived sounding for my taste.

Hearing him read a children's story in his political voice sounds kind of like a bit.

Maybe next time he can read ridiculous limericks or song lyrics in his never changing voice. Then I can move from being slightly irritated to laughing along. :)

Now public domain

Interesting. By reading the entire book on the senate floor it is now entered into the public record now making this book public domain! Oops.

Thanks for posting this.

I pretty much watched the entire 20+ hours, but had walked away for a while and came back while he was reading this book.

I remember reading long ago of people reading all sorts of non related things during a filibuster to take up time and thought, here we go.

But what a thoughtful thing for a Dad to do, knowing he wasn't going home that evening.

I don't think he was thinking as much about the message

of the book as he was thinking of those precious little girls. For all we know, this may be their favorite story.

*That said, Horton Hears a Who or Yertle The Turtle would have been excellent choices.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Wouldn't it be great if politicians meant what they said

and said what they meant? Actually, I was never a Seuss fan except for the Warner Bros. cartoon of Horton. :)
http://www.metatube.com/en/videos/195775/Horton-Hatches-the-...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

For those thinking this was a

For those thinking this was a bad choice to read due to the change of attitude at the end... He read the non-parody full version, not the one quoted above.

Jason Robinson
Secretary
Republican Liberty Caucus of Idaho
http://www.IdahoLibertyCaucus.org

I thought it strange he chose that book.

Doesn't he know the ending? To try things out, you might just like them.

Stupid choice to get his message out.

He shoulda just done what Sarah Palin said. Read the bill out loud.

Well, couldn't "the moral of the story"

could go either way? Maybe if some would try federal government limited as per the Constitution they'd like it. :)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Michael Nystrom's picture

Chuck Shummer said the same thing

- zing -

It is a good zing.

So Harry Reid has the GALL

to say, essentially, that Cruz did that for nothing!?!? Get this guy out of the Senate, fast! (OR at least get him out of the Senate Majority Leader position!) He is as much a 'piece of work' as Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, maybe more so!

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

The photo of the kids

is really cute.

It's perfect

What a keepsake for those girls to have!