Saturday September 24, 2016
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/09/23/cruz-endorses-trump/
Saturday September 24, 2016
URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/09/23/cruz-endorses-trump/
URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/07/wow-sarah-palin-blasts-ted-cruz-posts-brutal-anti-cruz-video/
Turns out Ted Cruz’s partner, Carly Fiorina, had a more graceful exit from the political stage than he had.
Cruz’s broken pledge to support the will of the people tonight was one of those career-ending “read my lips” moments. I guarantee American voters took notice and felt more unsettling confirmation as to why we don’t much like typical politicians because they campaign one way, but act out another way. That kind of political status quo has got to go because it got us into the mess we’re in with America’s bankrupt budgets and ramped up security threats.
It’s commonplace for politicians to disbelieve their word is their bond, as evidenced by Cruz breaking his promise to endorse his party’s nominee, evidently thinking whilst on the convention stage, “At this point, what difference does it make?” We’ve been burned so horribly by that attitude that voters won’t reward politicians pulling that “what difference does it make” stunt again. Politicians will see — it makes all the difference in the world to us.
URL of the original posting site: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/22111-ted-cruz-president-can-ignore-unconstitutional-supreme-court-decisions
Cruz fired his shot across judicial supremacy’s bow in a recent appearance on EWTN, a global Catholic network, while being interviewed by Princeton University professor Robert George (video below. Relevant portion begins at 13: 52).
Asking Cruz about “judicial power,” George pointed to the Supreme Court’s checkered past rulings, mentioning the Dred Scott case, the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York, Roe v. Wade, and this year’s Obergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage decision. The professor then said, as presented by Crisis magazine:
Some people say that a president must always accept the court’s interpretation of the Constitution no matter how dubious that interpretation is; that we have to treat it as the law of the land, binding not just on the parties to the case but on other officials of government, beginning with the president. Abraham Lincoln though, as you know, vehemently disagreed with that idea of judicial supremacy, saying that to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases, no matter what, no matter how usurpative, no matter how anti-constitutional, would be for the American people — and I quote now the Great Emancipator—“to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
George then asked if Lincoln was right and if Cruz would defy the court on Obergefell, to which the senator responded:
I agree with President Lincoln and courts do not make law.…The court interprets the law, applies the law…. And, you know, this is an area of really striking divide in this presidential election.…They’re [sic] quite a few Republicans who, when the gay “marriage” decision came down, they described it as the settled law of the land. It’s final; we must accept it, move on and surrender.
Those are almost word for word Barack Obama’s talking points and I think they are profoundly wrong. I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate. It was lawless. It was not based on the Constitution. I agree very much with Justice Scalia, who wrote a powerful dissent saying, this decision is a fundamental threat to our democracy.… And indeed, Justice Scalia, in the penultimate paragraph of his dissent, predicts, harkening back to President Lincoln defying Dred Scott, that state and local officials will refuse to obey this lawless decision. It is remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice saying that would be the consequence of this.
The reality is that the judiciary has no men under arms; it cannot enforce its rulings. Enforcement is the executive branch’s role, and the Court has no ability to coerce a president into acting on its decisions.
But isn’t this just a matter of might makes right? Doesn’t the court have the legal authority of its judicial-review power to nullify or invalidate a legislative or executive action it deems unconstitutional? Doesn’t this give it the moral high ground?
The Constitution is our land’s supreme law, above, of course, the Supreme Court; this is why the Court will rule against a law citing the Constitution’s authority and not merely its own. Yet where does the notion that the Court has judicial-review power — and that all three branches of government must be constrained by its judgments — come from?
It is not in the Constitution but was declared by the Court on, in essence, its own authority — in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.
So the Court gave the Court its oligarchic powers. And “oligarchic” is not too strong a word, nor a new characterization. As Thomas Jefferson wrote two centuries ago, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” He further said that if the judicial-supremacy thesis is sound, “then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” — a suicide pact. For judicial supremacy gives to one branch alone, continued Jefferson, “the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.…The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”
And the twisting continues apace as our Republic twists in the wind and we are governed by the ruler and not the rule. Justice Scalia made mention of this in his Obergefell dissent as well, writing, “It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s [marriage] decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”
One of the basic ideas behind our American government is “balance of power,” both between the feds and the states and among the three governmental branches. Judicial supremacy makes a mockery of this, confusing the Supreme Court with the Supreme Being and giving one branch — whose prominent members aren’t even elected by the people and cannot be recalled by them — complete trump power over the other two. To consider it legitimate is to believe our Founders fought one tyrant living overseas in the name of establishing a tribunal of nine tyrants on our own soil.
But they didn’t, which is why judicial supremacy wasn’t written into the Constitution. To accept it is to yield to circular reasoning: “The courts have the ultimate say in the meaning of law. And how do I know? The courts have told me so.”
URL of the original posting site: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/259775-cruz-its-offensive-people-who-are-anti-amnesty-are-labeled-anti-immigrant
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says he finds it “offensive” that people call him anti-immigrant for being a foe of “amnesty.”
“For those of us who believe that people ought to come to this country legally and that we should enforce the law, we’re tired of being told it’s anti-immigrant,” Cruz told a cheering, whistling crowd in Milwaukee, Wis., at the Republican presidential debate Tuesday night.“It’s offensive,” Cruz said.“The Democrats are laughing. Because if Republicans join Democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose.”
“I understand that when mainstream media covers immigration it doesn’t often see it as an economic issue,” he said.But the politics of immigration “would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande,” Cruz added.
“Or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press.”
“Then we would see stories about the economic calamity that is befalling our nation,” Cruz continued.
“Try going illegally into another country,” Cruz said. “Try going to China, or Japan. Try going into Mexico. See what they do.’
“Every sovereign nation secures its borders,” he added.
“And it is not compassionate to say we are not going to enforce the law and we are going to drive down the wages for millions of hardworking men and women.”
URL of the original posting site: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-moves-to-label-muslim-brotherhood-a-terrorist-group
The legislation outlines the Brotherhood’s long history of sponsoring terrorism and outlines congressional support for it to be designated a global terrorist outfit. The bill also would force Secretary of State John Kerry to explain why the Obama administration has been hesitant to label the Brotherhood a terrorist group.
The Brotherhood’s political wing has been banned in Egypt, where affiliates of the organization overthrew the government and then violently cracked down on its opposition, the United States has avoided labeling the organization a sponsor of terrorism.
Should the State Department refuse to move forward with the designation, the bill would require it to provide a justification for this policy, according to the bill.
Multiple House lawmakers spearheaded a similar effort last year, but the bill failed to become law.
This time around, Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) is heading the legislation in the Senate, while Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) is handling the House version of the bill, sources said.
“We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance,” Cruz told the Free Beacon. “We have to see it for what it is: a key international organization dedicated to waging violent jihad. Since the Obama administration refuses to utter the words’”radical Islamic terrorism,’ and Congress owes it to the American people to tell them the truth about this threat.”
The bill also helps combat the notion that Brotherhood is a peaceful political group, Cruz said.
“This bill puts the lie to the notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful political organization that can be a legitimate partner for America,” the lawmaker said. “In 2008 the Justice Department successfully prosecuted the largest terrorism-financing trial in American history arguing that the Muslim Brotherhood directed U.S. affiliates such as the Holy Land Foundation to provide ‘media, money and men’ to Hamas. That support was used for terrorist attacks against Americans and our allies in the Middle East. When they are capable they will try to do the same thing here.”
The bill, which includes a lengthy history of the Brotherhood’s links to radical terrorist leaders and violent incidents, concludes that “the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization.”
It would require the State Department and other agencies to determine whether the Brotherhood officially meets the requirements to be designated under U.S. law as a terrorist organization.
However, “if the Secretary of State determines that the Muslim Brotherhood does not meet the criteria,” it must submit to Congress “a detailed justification as to which criteria have not been met,” according to the bill.
Muslim Brotherhood affiliates as well as the group’s members have been listed as sponsors of terrorism in the past by the U.S. government. The terrorist group Hamas, a longtime Brotherhood affiliate, has been sanctioned for some time.
The organization garnered international headlines after its rise to power following a coup in Egypt that took down its longtime former leader. While in power, the Brotherhood cracked down on opponents and waged violent campaigns against Christians and others who opposed the group’s radical ideology.
Five countries—Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Russia—already consider the Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Israel, Canada, and the United Kingdom are examining the possibility of designating it a terrorist organization as well.
Lawmakers such as Cruz maintain that the Brotherhood poses a direct threat to U.S. national security, though the Obama administration has held meetings with the organization’s representatives.
A senior member of the Brotherhood was hosted at the White House last year, while other representatives of the group have been granted entrance to the United States. Senior U.S. officials have warned in the past that the Brotherhood both in the United States and overseas have backed terrorist acts. “I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism,” said Robert Mueller, the former director of the FBI, during testimony in 2011.
Cruz has also led congressional efforts to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps an official state sponsor of terrorism.
That bill, submitted at the end of September, would likely mitigate the impact of sanctions relief provided to Iran under the recently inked nuclear deal.
“Branches of the [Revolutionary Guard Corps] have murdered hundreds of Americans,” Cruz said in a statement at the time. “They have attacked our allies, notably Israel. They have provided material support for other designated terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet for years the United States has sanctioned [Revolutionary Guard Corps] entities while leaving the organization itself untouched.”
But late Thursday, he took on McConnell with renewed antipathy, using pie charts to demonstrate that the Kentucky Republican has bolstered the Democratic agenda rather than conservative goals during his ten-month tenure. “Why is a Republican majority leader fighting to accomplish the priorities of the Democratic minority?” Cruz asked.
Cruz criticized a broad budget and debt limit deal the Senate is scheduled to vote on early Friday, arguing that the accord gave President Obama and Democrats all that they wanted, with nothing in return for Republicans seeking to rein in spending and shrink the debt.
Many conservatives have waved off as insignificant a provision in the bill that aims to cut the cost of the nearly insolvent Social Security Disability Insurance program with heightened fraud scrutiny.
The legislation increases spending by $80 billion over two years, breaking budget caps. It also suspends the nation’s $18.1 trillion borrowing limit until March 2017.
“This means that Republican majorities in both parties will be extracting nothing significant from President Obama,” Cruz said in opposition to the bill. “This deal means that Republican leadership will have fully surrendered.”
Cruz’s drubbing didn’t stop with the budget.
Using pie charts, Cruz made the case that McConnell has helped to pass legislation opposed by the majority of Senate Republicans but supported by the majority of Democrats.
Climate change legislation and an amendment to revive the Export-Import were among the measures brought to the floor despite opposition from a majority of Republicans, Cruz noted. The provisions passed with mostly Democratic support.
Cruz said McConnell should employ an old GOP House rule to bring to the floor only legislation that has a majority of Republican Senators backing it. He said the established congressional leaders aren’t looking out for ordinary Americans but rather big corporations, who cut them checks for them at D.C. cocktail parties and reward them later with million-dollar jobs.
Cruz also targeted now former Speaker John Boehner, who retires Friday. Boehner wrote much of the budget deal Cruz opposes. “The lame duck speaker, on his way out, will no doubt land in a plush easy chair, in the Washington D.C. cartel, and will soon be making millions of dollars, living off the cartel,” Cruz said.
Cruz said Americans are onto the scheme and are tired of Republicans making promises on the campaign trail, only to shy away from big fights once elected. “That frustration is driving every day, the growing rage from the American people,” Cruz said.
McConnell has traditionally chosen to avoid responding to Cruz’s attacks and has discouraged other GOP lawmakers from defending him on the Senate floor. Most Senate Republicans support McConnell and have privately and publicly accused Cruz of using floor diatribes to raise campaign cash from the conservative base and support for his presidential bid.
Jim Manley, a former top aide to Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Cruz had taken an unprecedented step in attacking McConnell Thursday night. “I have never, EVER, seen anything like it,” Manley said on Twitter. “McConnell should not dignify with a response, but wow.”