Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) appeared on “Meet the Press” this morning.

During his appearance, he pointed out that President Obama immediately politicized the tragedy in Newtown. Twitter libs were not pleased; Truth is icky.

No, sweetie. The man doing the exploiting is insulting the dead and the grieving.

Huh. Pointing out the shameful exploitation of a tragedy (never let one go to waste, right, Rahm?) is the real disgrace, according to those drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. Also, Cruz is just a “puppet,” natch.

But, to the sane, President Obama’s exploitation and politicizing of a tragedy, in conjunction with his gross display of using children as props, is horrifying. They applaud Senator Cruz for having the guts, unlike President Obama as Senator Rubio pointed out recently, to speak truthfully.

Senator Cruz tweeted similar thoughts a few days ago.

Bingo. And, again, sane Twitter users agreed. They, as we have here at Twitchy, have been pointing out President Obama’s appalling use of children.

https://twitter.com/milton__4148/status/292605367031054336

And that he did. To the libs clutching their pearls over Senator Cruz’s statement: Try facing the truth. We’ll help, since we are givers. You can start here:

Sadly, don’t look for this disgusting exploitation to end.

It’s standard operating procedure for the Left. As always, the end justifies the means. Even if the means is exploiting children and politicizing on the backs of the dead.

  • TocksNedlog

    And there was the Chicago teachers that encouraged their students to march with them on the picket line, and . . .

  • http://apostrophejones.com/ Gloves Donahue, Jr.

    Obama knows his supporters are simpleminded enough not to question the logic of his words and proposals.
    If they voted to reelect this corrupt failure, they’ll buy anything he says or does.

    What will the MSM and Obama voters say if the next four years are even worse?
    He needs four more ?

  • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

    In Obama’s world, children would be allowed to survive an abortion and be left to die, alone, in a dark room, with no possible hope of human comfort or assisstance.

    • Sons Thunder

      Yes – it’s well known the president loves leaving newborns in the cold and dark with no human contact…what a thoughtful, reasonable comment!

      • Howzah123

        He pushed for legislation 3 times that demanded for exactly that. Obama is the most radical far left extremist abortion president in history. Oh you didn’t know that because you’ve brainwashed into a cult of hope and change?

        • Sons Thunder

          I’ve heard this charge before. I’ve read up on it. Essentially, Obama voted against a born-alive protection act because he felt the language could be used to restrict all abortions.

          So – he didn’t push the legislation; he voted against some already introduced.

          Who’s brainwashed again?

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            You pretty much are brainwashed because you’re comfortable with that “excuse” to allow for actual infanticide.

          • Howzah123

            You’re just bleeting spin you read at some liberal propaganda site. He voted 3 times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that even pro abortion people at the federal level supported. Obama referred to infants born outside the womb after a botched abortion as ‘fetuses’.

            He also referred to one of his daughters getting pregnant as a ‘punishment’

            Obama doesn’t oppose ANY restrictions on abortion, including sex selection abortions. His campaign officials repeatedly dodged the question during the election. This a Democrat Party that used to believe abortion should be rare. Now clowns like you rationalize extreme brutality committed against innocents because Obama does. You’re nothing more than a follower who will rationalize ANYTHING Obama does. It’s pathetic.

            3k innocent and defenseless children are murdered in the womb every day. Most are black. You have been brainwashed into a cult of hope and change

          • syvyn11

            You are.

          • Sons Thunder

            Erudite

          • SDN

            But the babies are still dead….

          • http://www.facebook.com/corey.dennison Corey Dennison

            That’s some awesome spin on Obama’s justification for murdering children!

      • Guest

        1.2 million dead, aborted babies can’t be wrong. Liberals and their beloved King Hussein defend and preside over one of the most horrific killing sprees in the history of humans, then have the audacity to wrap themselves in the false clothing of being defenders of life? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid of delusion. It looks good on all you.

        • Sons Thunder

          King Hussein? You mean the democratically elected president of the United States. Why do you hate America so much you pretend we are living under a dictatorship?

          I appreciate that you disagree with Roe v. Wade but it is the law of the land. As it was under previous Republican presidents (also democratically elected). To act as if Obama is solely responsible for legal abortion is the U.S. is very confusing.

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            Then you will admit that despite having Republican presidents since Roe who have not overturned it, no ONE PERSON can overturn that court decision despite every campaign ad that Democrats run to say that they will.

          • Sons Thunder

            Anyone who believe otherwise is deeply misinformed. I’m not aware of the ads of which you speak (a few hyperlinks would have helped) but if they exist, it is just proof that both parties can pander and rely on, as the kids are saying these days, low information voters.

          • nickc66

            since when does the law of the land matter?

          • http://www.facebook.com/corey.dennison Corey Dennison

            I bet your were asleep/stoned from 2001 – 2009…

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        It is reasonable considering that as an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted four (that’s 4 for you) times to deny protections to infants (that’s a live baby) born despite having gone through an abortion procedure (that’s a thing they do to kill babies prior to birth).

        The bill he voted against was called Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA)

        So you and I are both correct. President Obama loves leaving newborns in the cold and dark with no human contact….if they are strong enough to survive being killed by an abortionist (that’s a person who calls themselves a doctor, but they really just kill babies)

      • http://www.facebook.com/corey.dennison Corey Dennison

        “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”
        Google it.
        You’ll also find Obama voted AGAINST at every opportunity. Feel stupid yet?

    • nickc66

      that little one thankfully is not alone.

  • Jim Russell

    Liberalism is not a mental disorder, it’s a medical disorder. Bleeding from the heart deprives ones brain of needed blood to think logically, behave appropriately, then act rationally

  • lana ward

    This evil thing cares so much for kids, that the more the better that are murdered in the womb. He is the devil. The sooner he meets his maker, the better!!!

  • BeautifulAmerica

    In o bad ma’s world, children are to be ignored until proven useful in des troy ing America.

  • salvagesalvage

    How dare Obama use a tragedy to try and prevent future tragedies! He is truly a monster.

    • NRPax

      So exactly what combination of laws and restrictions will magically stop criminals and mentally ill people from going on mass shootings?

      • salvagesalvage

        Well why don’t you look at the nations that do have combinations of laws and restrictions and see how many mass shootings they have vs. the U.S.?

        It’s not magic it’s the fewer guns there are the less people get shot, more like sense and logic?

        • NRPax

          I noticed you avoided answering the question so let me help you. Even in countries that have incredibly restrictive laws about firearms ownership, there are still shootings such as the Dubai massacre. Unless you can figure out a way to magically destroy all the guns in existence and erase the knowledge of how to make them forever, you will never be able to stop shootings. And even if you stop shootings, bad people will still find a way to kill people.

          And have you noticed that the parts of this country where law-abiding people are allowed to carry weapons, you don’t see many shootings like this? Sense and logic.

          • salvagesalvage

            Yes, there are shootings in those places, now are there MORE or LESS in America? That’s the answer you don’t even want to think about.

            But I love this wingnut “logic”: You can’t completely solve the problem so we should do NOTHING! You can’t stop people from drinking and driving so there should be no laws or efforts to curb it!

            Ha! Ha! Yes! You can’t get and carry guns in Colorado!

          • NRPax

            That’s the answer you don’t even want to think about.

            Given that we have a larger land mass than a lot of countries put together, more people concentrated in more urban areas than said countries, it’s natural that there will be more crime. However, we have seen a drop in crime rate here including shootings.

            But I love this wingnut “logic”: You can’t completely solve the problem so we should do NOTHING!

            Whereas liberal “logic” insists that somehow we can make criminals and violently mentally ill people behave if we just have the right combination of laws. Never mind the fact that we have plenty of laws already in place, including ones that specifically address keeping weapons out of the hands of the wrong people. No one is saying do nothing. We are saying that existing laws should be enforced and that inanimate objects are not to blame.

            As for your last sentence: Given that I live in Maryland, you are right. I cannot get and carry guns in Colorado. What that has to do with the discussion eludes me. Perhaps I should mainline some mescaline and it will all come together.

          • salvagesalvage

            Once again, do places with more guns have more or less gun violence? No, land mass, urban areas and anything else you’d like to add are immaterial.

            Ha! Ha! Yes that is exactly it, liberals want to convince crazy people! You are very smart.

            And no, you don’t want the laws enforced, the NRA has spent the last twenty years making sure they are not.

            And yes! I am on drugs for thinking that less guns are going to lead to less people being shot like in countries that have less guns and less people being shot.

            THERE IS NO CONNECTION!!!

          • NRPax

            Once again, do places with more guns have more or less gun violence?

            That depends. What is your definition of gun violence? Do you view self defense as part of that? Are you only talking about homicides or are you talking about shootings in general? Are you talking about this country alone?

            In a related note, why does Chicago have such a high murder rate given the amount of restrictions they have in place?

            And you never have answered my question: What combination of laws would have prevented the CT shooting or any mass shooting?

            And no, you don’t want the laws enforced

            You’re so adorable you should audition for a live action My Little Pony movie. Do you have any evidence I have said that or are you just sticking to knee-jerk reactions?

            the NRA has spent the last twenty years making sure they are not.

            Hate to break it to you but the NRA is not a law enforcement agency nor are they part of the government. If the laws aren’t being enforced, that’s the fault of the political types.

            As for you being on drugs, you were pointing out that I can’t get guns in Colorado. Since I don’t live in Colorado, that statement made no sense whatsoever.

          • salvagesalvage

            That would be violence involving guns.

            And yes! Ha! Ha! The NRA has no influenced or otherwise had impact on any guns laws EVER! Nope, no lobbying have they ever done!

            See wingnut how you ignore reality when you don’t like it?

          • NRPax

            Ah. So if you are viewing all instances of gun use (Including self defense, military actions and police) then the numbers would look a lot different than merely defining it as being “unlawful use” of a gun.
            And Planned Parenthood lobbies along with lots of other groups. But again, they don’t create, enforce nor uphold the law.

            Reality isn’t being ignored here, little one. I simply fail to see how more gun control laws are going to physically prevent more mass killings. Personally, I prefer that law-abiding people have the ability to protect others from things like that happening. We differ on that but such is life.

          • salvagesalvage

            Ha! Ha! Yes The NRA has never created a law that was passed! Nope, not even once!

            I know you don’t see it, the real question is that a choice or is it natural?

            At any rate the fact remains places with sensible gun control have fewer mass and regular shootings than those that do not.

            It’s probably because of the lack of guns, it’s really hard to shoot someone if you can’t get a gun.

          • NRPax

            So what you are saying is that Connecticut did not have sensible gun control laws which is why the shooting happened? What a fascinating viewpoint.

          • salvagesalvage

            America does not have sensible gun control that is why it is easy to get guns in America. If it was harder to get guns fewer people would have guns and then fewer people would get shot.

            Like in the Uk, Canada, Japan, etc.

            I know, I know, you love your guns and you don’t care how many tiny coffins get filled for your artificial feeling of security.

          • Terri Ferrara

            Do you trust the government enough to not even think about your second amendment rights being taken?

          • salvagesalvage

            No one is taking anything, see it’s this paranoid divorce from reality that is the problem.

          • http://www.facebook.com/corey.dennison Corey Dennison

            How poetic/ironic that you (of all posters on this thread) choose this term!

          • salvagesalvage

            Ha! Ha! I know you are but what am I! Wingnuts such wit!

          • CherDash

            You didn’t hear Di Fi from San Francisco?

          • salvagesalvage

            I don’t know what you are talking about here.

          • NRPax

            OK, so we make laws that prohibit felons from getting guns. Wait. That already exists.

            We make it so that people who have been treated with psychiatric drugs can’t get guns. Wait. That already exists.

            We pass a law prohibiting straw purchases. Wait. That already exists.

            So your idea of “sensible laws” is to use the UK, Canada and Japan where private ownership is illegal but at the same time you claim that you don’t want to take guns away. Yep. You’re adorable.

          • salvagesalvage

            Crazy felon person can stroll into a gun show and walk out with a weapon.

            Crazy felon person can buy a gun off of a private dealer.

            Dealers aren’t required by law to keep inventory so if they want to sell to a crazy felon not that hard.

            Only in America!

          • NRPax

            Actually, dealers are required to keep track of their sales whether at a shop or a gun show. And the BATFE inspects them on a regular basis as well as confirms inventory. If something doesn’t add up, said dealer can lose his license.

            You are aware that the majority of felons are stealing the weapons or engaging in straw purchases, yes? Kind of like what the CT shooter did. He stole the guns, murdered the owner and went on a rampage So is there some kind of magical invocation you can think of that would stop it from happening?

          • salvagesalvage

            So that would be a crazy felon can walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun or buy one off of Craig’s List?

            They don’t inspect them, BATFE has been gutted since Clinton’s day at the urging and cheer of the NRA and their supporters.

            As such it’s very easy for crazy felons to get guns.

            That’s one of the things Obama is trying to curb but the NRA and wingnuts are having none of it, screaming “Hitler!” all the way.

            Once again, the “magic” is sensible laws like they have in Canada, the Uk, Japan, etc.

            I keep making that point and you keep ignoring it, I wonder why that is?

          • NRPax

            So that would be a crazy felon can walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun or buy one off of Craig’s List?

            Evidence and specific examples, please

            BATFE has been gutted since Clinton’s day at the urging and cheer of the NRA and their supporters.
            You have obviously never bought a weapon and have never talked to any dealers. BATFE is far from gutted and they still inspect paperwork. And they do go after dealers.

            I keep making that point and you keep ignoring it, I wonder why that is?

            Because the laws you are talking about violate the Second Amendment in this country. You have to repeal that first before you get your magical solution and it still won’t solve anything. Again, India had a massacre with 300 victims and yet they have stricter laws than the UK. Wonder why you keep ignoring things like that?

          • salvagesalvage

            >Evidence and specific examples, please

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/us/31guns.html?_r=0

            >BATFE is far from gutted

            Uh huh. Who is in charge of it right now?

            >Because the laws you are talking about violate the Second Amendment in this country.

            There are laws that “violate” the first one as well. You are aware that times change? That back in the 1700s firearms were a wee bit different yeah?

            But let’s say you’re right, so it’d be cool to own an RPG? A howitzer? How about armour piercing bullets, those are cool as well?

            >. Again, India had a massacre with 300 victims and yet they have stricter laws than the UK.

            They do not.

          • salvagesalvage

            And here’s Jon Stewart talking about it:

            http://www.hulu.com/watch/446358

            He says a lot of facts so you’ll probably want to put your fingers in your ears and scream “NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!” least you learn anything you might not like.

        • http://www.facebook.com/corey.dennison Corey Dennison

          Ok genius, let’s play: Explain why the UK’s violent crime rate up to FIVE times that of the US. Keep in mind they have a total ban on all guns.

          http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html.

          Suck it.

          • salvagesalvage

            How many people were shot in the Uk again?

  • stuckinIL4now

    I like this deluded tweet (above) from a delusional twidiot: “Ted Cruz is all about his own limited talking points. Refuses to answer questions.” Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like an Obamuh press conference–that is when on such rare a occasion he allows himself to show up at one to pontificate “his own limited talking points” for several minutes until someone dares interrupt him with a question at which point he abruptly ends it and storms out in a huff.

  • nc

    Cruz wastes no time marking his territory all over the MSM.

    • NRPax

      And bless him for it.

  • JustLikeAnimals

    1.2 million dead, aborted babies per year can’t be wrong. Liberals and their beloved King Hussein defend and preside over one of the most horrific killing sprees in the history of humanity, then have the audacity to wrap themselves in the false clothing of being defenders of life? That’s progressive?

    Keep drinking the Kool-Aid of delusion. It looks good on all you.

  • $38218625

    We can now expect Senator Ted Cruz to be severely demonized– even though he is just speaking the truth on the matter – fact is the Dear liar has always been anti-self defense:

    Flashback—Obama, Circa 1990s: ‘I Don’t Believe People Should Be Able to Own Guns’
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/18/Barack-Obama-I-Don-t-Believe-People-Should-Be-Able-Own-Guns
    Read that again, and let it soak in;

    Barack Obama reportedly said, “I don’t think people should be able to own guns.”

    In my correspondence with Lott, he stood by his story.
    And there’s little reason to doubt Lott’s account, especially when you take Obama’s history of anti-gun legislation into account.
    Consider these examples:
    1. In a 1998 questionnaire for the Illinois state legislature, Obama said he wanted to “ban the sale or transfer of all sorts of semi-automatic weapons.”
    2. From 1998-2001 Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, the “major funder for gun-control research” at that time.
    3. Obama opposes concealed carry and always has (every state but Illinois disagrees with him).
    But all these things and more are simply symptoms of a bigger issue—namely, that Obama doesn’t think people should be able to own guns in the first place.

    ..

    He just had to wait until after the election to stop living the temporary lie.

    Obama 2008 – “I Am Not Going To Take Your Guns Away, That Just Ain’t True”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkUpp22fHyw&feature=player_detailpage

  • DANEgerus

    Obama exploited the Newtown Tragedy faster than it would have taken to rescue Stevens in Benghazi

  • DANEgerus

    Obama exploited the Newtown Tragedy faster than the police to a 911 call

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Cruz proving his worth everyday. Get out there, and give ’em hell Ted!

  • syvyn11

    With Senators like Cruz, Rubio, Paul and Scott, I’ve got some HOPE for the future of our republic.

    They should give themselves a name, like the four horsemen.