Quote of the Day: Pushing Back Twice as Hard Edition

ABC_ted_cruz_jt_131222_16x9_608

“What we have accomplished in many of the instances is stopping bad things from happening. Remember the beginning of the second term of Obama. We had the horrible shooting in Sandy Hook. And President Obama didn’t come out and say ‘Let’s target violent criminals,’ which is what he should have done and brought together bipartisan agreement. Instead he used it as excuse to go after law-abiding citizens. Much of Washington was consigned, [saying] ‘We can’t stop this, the train is moving, get on board.’ I did everything I could to energize and mobilize the grassroots to stand up and protect the Second Amendment. And every single proposal of Barack Obama to undermine the Second Amendment was voted down on the Senate floor.” – Ted Cruz in After the Sandy Hook kids were slaughtered, Ted Cruz was more worried about protecting guns [at rawstory.com]

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Now it’s time to throw Hillary in prison and Obama out onto the street. If Cruz wins, I can actually see a repeal of quite a few of the ridiculous gun control laws on the federal books.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Walker / Cruz / Walker would all be excellent choices. I’m excited for 2016, and already thinking about what champagne to buy when Obama leaves office. Thankfully Hillary is a terrible candidate, and far too arrogant to step down.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        I could even go with a Ted Cruz/Condie Rice ticket. She could add some of that foreign policy “gravitas” the way Cheney’s addition to the ticket did in 2000 for W.

        Mostly it’d just be fun watching the Dems scramble to pick a card, any card, after first trying to play the race card against those two.

        1. I’m digging Fiorina.

  2. avatar JWM says:

    You don’t protect kids by banning firearms from me and people like me. You protect kids by letting me and people like me carry and patrol our kids and grandkids schools.

    obama, bloomberg, shannon, difi are full of shit. And thanks directly to their misdirected and wasted efforts our school kids are just as unsafe as before Sandy Hook.

  3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Yup. I’m liking Mr. Cruz so far.

    1. avatar James says:

      I have no doubt Sen. Cruz stood tall in standing up for the 2nd Amendment and Constitution in general. He is a man of strong principle. This comment does seem somwhat overblown and ego stroking. My one good Senator also stood strong as he is a man of principle too in fighting for our rights so it’s not exactly like the Senate was going to pass gun control and Ted himself turned so many around to save the day. He’s a brilliant mind, quality candidate, but his ego will be his downfall like it was for Newt Gingrich.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        He’s running for Prez. He has to convince folks of why they should vote for him.

        1. avatar JohnF says:

          One word: Hillary

          If a bag of oats could get the nomination against her, I’d vote for it.

      2. avatar Chuck in IL says:

        He’s telling us what he personally did. Unlike Obama, he is not claiming sole credit for a successful outcome. Senators Cruz, Paul and Lee have worked together along with others in the Senate to accomplish their goals, I don’t think any of them throw around “I me me” like some do.

    2. avatar Wiregrass says:

      I can support Cruz. I still prefer Rand overall, but I’m prepared to accept that Cruz may have the broader appeal for the long haul. He’s definitely sharper than the current and several of the past White House occupants. He just has a bit of a populist streak that I find a bit irksome.

  4. avatar George in NC says:

    Is Ted Cruz actually eligible to run for president? He was born in Canada.

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      Didn’t that rule go out the window with the current Idiot in Chief… or has that whole “Born in Kenya” thing been irrefutably disproven. Seriously, I would like to know the answer to that last part.

      1. avatar Chuck in IL says:

        I think the answer to the Kenya question is this: Yes, he was born in Hawaii. But he claimed many times to be born in Kenya (one example: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/05/17/the-vetting-barack-obama-literary-agent-1991-born-in-kenya-raised-indonesia-hawaii/) including, I think anyway, on his college admission papers in order to receive privileges not available to everyone else. That’s why you haven’t seen his college transcripts, and likely never will.

      2. avatar AndyNC says:

        No you wouldn’t. If you actually did want to know, you’d find out and accept it.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      To American parents, so yes.

      1. avatar Alex Peterson says:

        I think only his mother was American at the time. Father is Cuban and fought along Castro in the revolution. After he saw what the revolution had become, he fled Cuba. He may have gotten his U.S. citizenship since then. Doesn’t matter though. If you’re born to one American parent, you are a citizen by birth.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’m not hearing sources or legal quotes here. In 1954 my mother insisted that my father be reassigned fro his post of Deputy Naval Attache to the Ameican Embassy in Moscow, due to the fact that she was pregnant with my youngest brother. There were conflicting opinions at the time as to how to read the requirements, and she did not want her son/daughter (never knew until birth at the time) to be born with any legal restrictions as to what he could or could not do. That is60 years ago, and the question still exists, apparently. Obama was sworn up and down to have been born in Hawaii, some believe it and some don’t. So the question is still unanswered.

          It does seem that if all that was needed was one American parent, the fuss would never have happened at all, his mother was unquestionably a native-born American.

    3. avatar JPD says:

      Dual citizenship. Look it up. Common in many countries. In this case, I believe his parents (at least his Mother) were American citizens. By law that gives him dual citizenship.

      Unlike another person in office (Obama), who’s SSN number was stolen from a deceased man from Connecticut, who died in Florida without ever applying for benefits.

      1. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

        So, if understand correctly, Obama did not have a parent who was a citizen like Cruz? I am confused as I thought his mom was from Hawaii or something…not that it matters I guess.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Knew a guy with triple citizenship a few years back, father from one country, mother from a second, born in a third. But the requirement is not simply “born a citizen”, as I understand it (think it’s in the Constitution, too lazy to look it up), but a “Native-born citizen”, interpreted by some as physically born within the borders of the US. In which case Cruz, I think, will be unqualified, but I guess we may finally find out.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          The constitutional standard is “natural born citizen”, not “native born”, and such citizenship means that it is a birthright, i.e., conferred upon birth. That is interpreted to mean either born physically on U.S. territory, or born to a U.S. citizen regardless of location of birth. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, so he is a U.S. citizen, despite having been born in Calgary, Canada.

          We don’t strip babies of their birthright, simply because they were born abroad. Thousands of Americans are born abroad each year, to U.S. military personnel, U.S. foreign service personnel, expatriates working abroad, and even vacationers.

          This is settled law, too, as the federal courts have already considered and ruled on this point of law with McCain back in 2008. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, where his USN officer father was stationed at the time. U.S. citizen parent(s) begets U.S. citizen child.

          True, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on this, and they never will. The law is obvious and can only be alternately interpreted by way of purely partisan machinations, and there’s no lingering disagreement among the lower courts. Case closed, settled law.

      3. avatar pg2 says:

        Since when is dual citizenship problem? Many in our Federal Government are dual citizens.

        1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Dual citizenship should be a disqualifier, anyone with a secondary allegiance should not hold public office. But as long as we are wishing, I’d like a pony.

    4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Cruz was conferred US citizenship at birth, as the child of (a) US citizen(s). He is a natural-born citizen, as opposed to being a naturalized citizen. So yes: Ted Cruz is eligible.

      1. avatar Higgs says:

        Is he eligible – Yes. Cruz and those who are helping him knew this was an issue and would have fully vetted the answer to that quesiton BEFORE he announced.

        The left hate Cruz. If there was any chance they could use this they would. They are not. Instead you have liberals like Al Sharpton saying that Cruz is a US citizen.

        Now back to guns.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        OK, so I looked it up. The Constitution requires Prez candidates to be “natural-born” citizens, but nowhere within the Constitution could I find a definition of a natural-born citizen. I guess that has been defined by Congress? Or did I miss it?

    5. avatar Paul says:

      Even with the crazy birther conspiracies both Cruz and Obama qualify the same way, their mothers are American by birth regardless of where they were born or where their fathers were born.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        There is a difference between Cruz and Obama. There is absolutely no evidence that his mother was in Kenya when he was born. I don’t know if there is evidence that she ever visited Kenya. We are 100% certain that Cruz was born in Canada because his birth certificate was issued by the Province of Alberta

        1. avatar Anon in CT says:

          Except that if Obama had been born overseas, his mother’s nationality would not have automatically conferred citizenship because she was too young.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          The magic age is 18. And you hit the nail on the head. His citizenship was conferred not birthright. It is a form of naturalization.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Where are you guys finding these rules? I never even heard of a minimum age limit for your child to be a citizen. We have lots of kids born to moms and/or dads who are not yet 18, they are not citizens? Quote me a law I can research, please.

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          It is 18 for children born to American citizens outside the United States. If you are born here you are a birthright citizen regardless of the age of you parents. It is the act of being born here that counts.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I have heard that a child born to American parents outside the US must choose when he turns 18 to be an American or his birth nationality, but never heard of his mother’s or father’s age at the time of his birth making any difference at all. Are we sure about that?

    6. avatar tdiinva says:

      It’s really a grey area. Unlike John McCain who was born to American citizens who were in Panama in service to the United State government Cruz’s mother was Canada as a private citizen. While the US “granted” him citizenship upon his return to the Untied States he was with out doubt a Canadian citizen by virtue of birth. Does this constitute natural born? I believe that at the time the Constitution was written the answer would be no. The citizenship of the father was the citizenship of the child. I believe in following the Constitution even when I don’t like the result.

      1. avatar malikknows says:

        This is close to how I see it, but I do wonder about one thing. It seems to me that there are two types of citizens, those who are natural born and those who are naturalized. If all that has to happen is the government merely issues you a form, without a naturalization ceremony or procedure, then that seems to mean natural born.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Anon in CT has the right wording. Children of American citizens born abroad when they are not in service to the United States government have their citizenship conferred. It is a form of automatic naturalization, i.e., not natural born. The reason that someone who is born to American citizens overseas who are in service to the US Government is natural born is because the government sent their parents there.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        One’s employer or purpose for being out if the country isn’t relevant. So what is McCain’s father was a USN officer and Cruz’s mother was a private citizen. That’s not the rule and you cannot cite any official to the contrary.

        Neither does his U.S. citizenship birthright depend on whether he may also or already be a citizen of another country. Nobody challenges that he held Canadian citizenship, but that’s not a bar to dual citizenship, anyway. So it’s irrelevant.

        This is all just so much comment board b.s., not backed by any actual law.

        1. avatar DickG says:

          John McCain is also a Panamanian citizen granted by Panama at the time of his birth in the “Canal Zone” which Panama recognized as Panamanian Territory. All persons born in Panama and the CZ are considered Panamanian citizens by birth by the Republic of Panama.
          .
          Unless Sr. McCain properly and legally (according to Panamanian law) denounced his Panamanian citizenship.
          .

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          It most certainly does make a difference. John McCain Sr. was ordered by the US Navy to live in Panama. It wasn’t his choice. Cruz’s mother moved to Alberta voluntarily. If Cruz stayed up in Canada until he was 18, never setting foot in the US he would have lost his citizenship.

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Soooo…..to back up your point, tdi, all you have is a reiteration of your original, self-styled, unfounded assertion, coupled with an alternate reality scenario that never occurred?

        Strong argument. Thanks for stopping by.

        So anyway, American Mom = American Cruz, and even the U.S Government agrees.

    7. avatar DickG says:

      If he was born of 2 American citizens, He is a Natural Born Citizen.
      .

      1. avatar BlueBronco says:

        Where is this 2-parent thing in The Constitution?

    8. avatar Grindstone says:

      McCain was born in Panama.

    9. avatar BlueBronco says:

      His mother is an American citizen and they were just in Canada on a job. If your folks were on vacation in France when you were born, you wouldn’t be French unless they became French etc.

  5. avatar SAS 2008 says:

    “After the Sandy Hook kids were slaughtered, Ted Cruz was more worried about Americans and their rights than passing laws that would strip them of their rights and not prevent another Sandy Hook.

    There, fixed the title for them.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Close, but I think “passing STUPID laws… etc” would have been better.

  6. avatar David Stadler says:

    Had we provided a reasonable level of armed security at Sandy Hook, as we do in other public venues including sports stadiums, city streets, and Congress, most if not all of these kids would be alive today. I think Ted Cruz would be a hellava lot better President than King Obama who trades terrorists for a deserter, blames law abiding gun owners for Sandy Hook, and blames police for defending themselves against physical attacks by black thugs.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Yes, having a good guy with a gun in every school is our recommended solution. Even so, we don’t need to make that argument.
      3M has a product to reinforce glass windows to make them resistant to attack delaying an intruder for several minutes. Schools could up-armor their doors with this material (as well as other structural elements) and require visitors to be buzzed-in after staff identified them. Such measures would buy a few minutes time for the cops to arrive. An attacker could not be sure that he would overcome these defenses before a patrol car in the neighborhood might reach the school.
      Such measures would cost some money, but not as much as maintaining an armed School Resource Officer. The fact is that school boards, administrators and faculty are NOT INTERESTED in school security ENOUGH. They WON’T spend the money nor instill the discipline. They much prefer to spend the money on salaries than security. It is these institutional actors that are keeping our children defenseless; and, it’s NOT because of any heartfelt (though misguided) argument against guns.
      I submit that it is THIS argument – complacency and indifference – that we PotG ought to press first and foremost. Why grind our axe when we can simply point-out that our opponents are hypocrites; that they are too lazy and too self-centered that they would rather leave self-locking door’s ajar and take pay-raises rather than protect the children?

      Once this point is made we can ask: What objection is there to keeping a loaded shotgun in the Principal’s office? If an attacker is trying – for several minutes – to break through an up-armored door there is plenty of time for any staff member to grab the shotgun and hold the attacker at bay until the cops arrive. Not much training is required to lay down cover fire with a shotgun. Generally, there is at least one veteran in every school of any size who could rush to the office where the shotgun is kept before an intruder could breach an up-armored door.
      We need not make an argument that the ONLY solution is to have teachers concealed-carry or parents to carry when visiting the school. A very modest step (a shotgun in the office) would buy another 5 minutes for the cops to arrive. Such an argument would likely be considered palatable much sooner than pistol-packing teachers.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Schools would rather pay boardmembers 6 figure salaries for < 10 hour workweeks than a one-time expense of anti-intrusion window films and reinforced locks.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Such measures would buy a few minutes time for the cops to arrive.

        What difference would that make? As a general rule with very few exceptions, these sorts of shootings end when the attacker decides to end them (often via suicide), regardless of police response. And even after police respond, they are not required to accost the shooter, and often do little more than wait.

        We need not make an argument that the ONLY solution is to have teachers concealed-carry or parents to carry when visiting the school.

        The biggest change needed is simply the removal of the blanket “Gun Free Zone” status from schools. They would immediately cease being a desirable, target-rich environment. School districts that wish to provide even more explicit protection for their students would proclaim, far and wide and loudly, that its schools are staffed with armed adults.

        School mass/spree shootings would likely cease entirely.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “We need not make an argument that the ONLY solution is to have teachers concealed-carry or parents to carry when visiting the school”

        Absolutely correct, there are thousands of possible solutions. It just happens that the most positive solution by far, is also the least expensive by far, and the only one which does not violate anyone’s civil rights. That is requiring all school personnel, from the janitor to the principal, to carry every minute of every day they are inside a school.

        Look, having 1000 flak-jacketed troops armed with automatic weapons posted outside each classroom would take care of the problem, but it would most likely be considered cost-prohibitive. UBC would actually be cost prohibitive as well, although completely meaningless AND ineffective. An actual answer is really easy, and getting the far-left anti-gun loony tunes scaredy-pants the hell and gone out of our classrooms would be a free side benefit.

        1. avatar DickG says:

          “We need not make an argument that the ONLY solution is to have teachers concealed-carry or parents to carry when visiting the school”
          .
          The solution is to have teachers concealed-carry AND parents to carry when visiting the school.
          ..
          THEN apply whatever other preventative measures your little heart desires!

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Dick, while I agree I think the point is moot. If every employee is carrying, no one will ask or even care whether visiting parents are carrying or not. All the chicken-poop panty twisters will be gone, common sense will have arrived.

        3. avatar DickG says:

          Indeed!

  7. avatar DickDanger says:

    God forbid that someone was thinking clearly during a time of high emotions to make sure people didn’t do something rash and illogical just for the feelz.

  8. avatar Dale says:

    From the article: “Adam Lanza didn’t become a violent criminal until after he shot his mother while she was still in bed”

    Except even cursory online research indicates that he had some significant psychological issues which weren’t being addressed long before he went over the edge.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Or a single glance at his photo!

  9. avatar the ruester says:

    The disqus thread there is a textbook example of how badly they are losing this debate. Discussing gun rights with a conservative QUICKLY demoralizes them, forcing them hurl insults almost immediately.

    1. avatar Chuck in IL says:

      That is a favorite liberal/progressive debate tactic no matter the subject. One of my favorite games to play when debating them online is to see how long it takes them to hurl the first invective. The over/under is usually four replies.

  10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Ted Cruz in After the Sandy Hook kids were slaughtered, Ted Cruz was more worried about protecting guns…

    No, Ted Cruz was more worried about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Perhaps Cruz was the only legislator genuinely interested in effective solutions to protect the children. That he was interested in protecting Constitutional rights of citizens is merely a coincidence.

  11. avatar STan says:

    Rawstory is a hard left website. So it’s no sUrpriSe They spin anti 2a

  12. avatar tdiinva says:

    This is meant to be a hit piece on Cruz. Well, it misses the mark because, for one thing, no gun bill was going to pass the House but if I had to pick one Senator who masterly defended the Second Amendment it would be the reviled on the right Lindsey Graham.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      It would be lovely if Cruz had responded that he agreed with this idiotic “hit” piece completely. Yes, that is exactly what I did, thank you for the free publicity. The writer seems to think Cruz did something wrong!!??

  13. avatar H says:

    The blog author let emotion run away from a balanced view. It’s name calling. If you are for gun rights than you are pro dead School kids. Life isn’t that simple. Right and Left do it. They both go for the simple solution.

    I may not share all of Cruz’s philosophy but he is correct here. He didn’t say it clearly enough.
    Let’s say there are drug dealers in some houses on your street. Suburban USA. You want them gone. Do you approve unlimited police search of everyone’s houses to find the menace? If you do you’ve started the slippery slope.
    I hear people say I don’t care if Samsung listens to my private home conversations through the TV. I have nothing to hide.
    Fast forward two decades and they get arrested because they said they don’t like the Govt. They opened the gate.
    The other politicians who jumped on post Sandy Hook for their own careers should be shunned.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    I like Ted because he scares the shit out of those people. Best reason to vote for him

    1. avatar Chuck in IL says:

      Your enemies will always signal what they fear the most if you watch who they go after the hardest. How many hard hitting stories have you seen about Jeb Bush?

      Walker/Cruz 2016

    2. avatar Model 31 says:

      They do seem to be on DERCON 5 (Derangement Condition 5) when it comes to Cruz.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I think I prefer DERp CONdition 5.

        ‘One step from nuclear derp’

  15. avatar RenegadeDave says:

    Ted Cruz seems to be more effective throwing his weight around and actually leading than a lot of his colleagues. Rand Paul has some success in the arena as well, but not to quite the same effect. I’m excited about his candidacy and he didn’t eff around with the whole “exploratory committee” phase. I think he also embraces the fact he’ll never but held up by the media as a darling. His tit for tat with the media is great and I’ve not encountered one of his clips I didn’t think he handled well.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I really like a lot of what Cruz has to offer, but his announcing amidst a large coven and declaring his wish to establish a Christian Caliphate kinda puts me off. For me to get real interested, I need at least a promise to govern within the real world, your private silliness not affecting your official actions. I am not seeing that. But, hey, there’s time!

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        …declaring his wish to establish a Christian Caliphate…

        This might be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read in a TTAG comment. You are blinded by your anti-religion bigotry.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I guess you did not listen, did not note the venue, or are simply blinded by the effects of your early brainwashing. Nanny-nanny boo-boo. I know you are, but what am I. Etc, rinse and repeat.

          Bragging about an intention to decide all matters of biology, marriage, etc in accordance with his personal interpretation of a 5000 year old work of fiction is not cause for confidence.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The stupidity of the assertion that Ted Cruz wishes to establish a “Christian Caliphate” stands on its own (de)merits.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You might want to study the similarities, lest your blindness stand on its own merits.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Do you even know the definition of caliphate?

          A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة‎ khilāfa) is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph (Arabic: خَليفة‎ khalīfah —a person considered a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community. The Rashidun caliphs, who directly succeeded Muhammad as leaders of the Muslim community, were chosen through shura, a process of community consultation which some consider an early form of Islamic democracy. During the history of Islam after the Rashidun period, many Muslim states, almost all of them hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates.

          The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that, as a head of state, a Caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives. Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a Caliph should be an Imam chosen by God from the Ahl al-Bayt (the “Family of the House”, Muhammad’s direct descendants)…

          The term caliph (/ˈkeɪlɪf, ˈkælɪf/), derives from the Arabic word khalīfah (خَليفة, About this sound pronunciation (help·info)), which today means “successor”, “steward”, or “deputy” and has traditionally been considered a shortening of either the term khalifat Allah (“successor to God”) or khalifat rasul Allah (“successor of the messenger of God”). However, studies of pre-Islamic texts suggest that the original meaning of the phrase was “successor selected by God.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

          Now, let’s compare that with the text of Ted Cruz’s announcement speech:

          Thank you so much, President Falwell.

          God bless Liberty University.

          I am thrilled to join you today at the largest Christian university in the world.

          Today I want to talk with you about the promise of America.

          Imagine your parents and their children, imagine a little girl, growing up in Wilmington, Delaware, during World War Two, the daughter of Irish and Italian Catholic family, working class, her uncle ran numbers in Wilmington, she grew up with dozen of cousins because her mom was the second youngest of 17 kids, she had a difficult father, a man who drank far too much, and frankly didn’t think women should be educated, and yet this young girl, pretty and shy, was driven, was bright, was inquisitive, and she became the first person in her family to go to college. In 1956, my mom, elenor, graduated from Rice University with a degree in math, and became a pioneering computer programmer in the 1950s and 1960s.

          Imagine a teenage boy. Not much younger than many of you here today. Growing up in Cuba. Jet black hair, skinny as a rail.

          Involved in student council and yet Cuba was not at a peaceful time. The dictator, Batista, was corrupt. He was oppressive. And this teenage boy joins a revolution. He joins a revolution against Batista. He begins fighting, with other teenagers, to free Cuba from the dictator. This boy at age 17 finds himself thrown in prison, finds himself tortured, beaten, and then at age 18, he flees Cuba. He comes to America.

          Imagine for a second the hope that was in his heart as he rode that ferry boat across to key west and got on a greyhound bus to head to Austin, Texas to begin working washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour. Coming to the one land on earth that has welcomed so many millions.

          When my dad came to America, in 1957, he could not have imagined what lay in store for him.

          Imagine a young married couple, living together in the 1970s, neither one of them has a personal relationship with Jesus. They have a little boy, and they’re both drinking far too much. They’re living a fast life. When I was three my father decided to leave my mother and me. We were living in Calgary at the time he got on a plane and flew back to Texas. He decided he didn’t want to be married anymore and he didn’t want to be a father to his three-year-
          old son.

          And yet when he was in Houston, a friend a colleague, from the oil and gas business invited him to a Bible study. Invited him to Clay Road Baptist church. And there my father gave his life to Jesus Christ. And God transformed his heart, and he drove to the airport, he bought a plane ticket, and he flew back to be with my mother and me.

          There are people who wonder if faith is real. I can tell you, in my family there is not a second of doubt because were it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ I would have been saved and I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household.

          Imagine another little girl, living in Africa, in Kenya and Nigeria. Playing with kids. They spoke Swahili, they spoke English. Coming back to California, where her parents, who had been missionaries in Africa raised her on the central coast. She starts a small business when she is in grade school, baking bread. She calls it, Heidi’s bakery. She and her brother compete baking bread. They bake thousands of loaves of bread and go to the local apple orchard where they sell the bread to people coming to pick apples. She goes on to a career in business, excelling and rising to the highest pinnacles.

          And then Heidi becomes my wife and my very best friend in the world. Heidi becomes an incredible mom to our two precious little girls, Caroline and Catherine, the joys and loves of our lives.

          Imagine another teenage boy, being raised in Houston, hearing stories from his dad about prison and torture in Cuba. Hearing stories about how fragile liberty is, beginning to study the United States Constitution, learning about the incredible protections we have in this country that protect the God-given liberty of every American.

          Experiencing challenges at home. The mid 1980s oil prices crater. And his parents business go bankrupt. Heading off to school over a thousand miles away from home at a place where he knew nobody. Where he was alone and scared. And his parents going through bankruptcy meant there was no financial support at home. So at the age of 17 he went to get two jobs to help pay his way through school. He took over $100,000 in school loans. Loans, I suspect a lot of y’all can relate to. Loans that I will point out I just paid off a few years ago. These are all of our stories. These are who we are as Americans. And yet for so many Americans, the promise of America seems more and more distant.

          What is the promise of America? The idea that the, revolutionary idea, that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights, they don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty. And that the purpose of the Constitution as Thomas Jefferson put it, is to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government.

          What has enabled millions of people from all over the world to come to America with nothing and to achieve anything. And then, the American exceptionalism that has made this nation a clarion voice for freedom in the world, a shining city on a hill. That’s the promise of America. That is what makes this is nation an indispensable nation, a unique nation in the history of the world. And yet so many fear that, that promise is today unattainable. So many fear it is slipping away from our hands. I want to talk to you this morning about reigniting the promise of America.

          240 years ago on this very day a 38-year-old lawyer named Patrick Henry stood up just 100 miles from here in Richmond, Virginia, and said, ‘give me liberty or give me death.’ I want to ask each of you to imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives all across America rising up together to say in unison, we demand our liberty.

          Today, roughly half of born-again Christians aren’t voting.

          They’re staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values. Today, millions of young people are scared, worried about the future, worried what the future will hold. Imagine millions of young people coming together and standing together saying, ‘we will stand for liberty.’ Think just how different the world would be. Imagine, instead of economic stagnation, booming economic growth.

          Instead of small businesses going out of business in record numbers, imagine, small businesses growing and prospering. Imagine young people coming out of school with four, five, six job offers. Imagine innovation thriving on the Internet as government regulators and tax collectors are kept at bay and more and more opportunity is created. Imagine America finally becoming energy self-sufficient as millions and millions of high-paying jobs are created.

          Five years ago today the President signed Obamacare into law. Within hours Liberty University went to court filing a lawsuit to stop that failed law. Instead of the joblessness, instead of the millions forced into part-time work, instead of the millions who have lost their health insurance, lost their doctors, have faced skyrocketing health insurance premiums, imagine in 2017 a new President, signing legislation repealing every word of Obamacare.

          Imagine health care reform that keeps government out of the way between you and your doctor and that makes health insurance personal and portable and affordable. Instead of a tax code that crushes innovation, that imposes burdens on families struggling to make ends meet, imagine a simple, flat tax. That lets every American fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.

          Imagine abolishing the IRS. Instead of the lawlessness, and the President ‘s unconstitutional executive amnesty, imagine a President that finally, finally, finally, secures the borders. And imagine a legal immigration system that welcomes and celebrates those who come to achieve the American dream. Instead of a federal government that wages an assault on our religious liberty, that goes after Hobby Lobby, that goes after the Little Sisters of the Poor, that goes after Liberty University.

          Imagine a federal government that stands for the first amendment rights of every American. Instead of a federal government that works to undermine our values, imagine a federal government that works to defend the sanctity of human life and to uphold the sacrament of marriage. Instead of a government that works to undermine our second amendment right, that seeks to ban our ammunition, imagine a federal government that protects the right to keep and bear arms of all law-abiding Americans.

          Instead of a government that seizes your emails and your cell phones, imagine a federal government that protected the privacy rights of every American. Instead of a federal government that seeks to dictate school curriculum through common core. Imagine repealing every word of common core. Imagine embracing school choice as the civil rights issue of the next generation. That every single child, regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of wealth or zip code, every child in America has a right to a quality education. And that’s true from all of the above, whether it is a public schools or charter schools or private schools or Christian schools, or parochial schools or homeschools, every child.

          Instead of a President who boycotts Prime Minister Netanyahu, imagine a President who stands unapologetically with the nation of Israel. Instead of a President who seeks to go to the United Nations to end-run congress and the American people. Imagine a President who says, I will honor the Constitution and under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.

          Imagine a President who says, we will stand up and defeat radical Islamic terrorism. And we will call it by its name. We will defend the United States of America. Now all of these seem difficult. Indeed to some they may seem unimaginable. And yet if you look in the history of our country.

          Imagine it is 1775 and you and I were sitting there in Richmond listening to Patrick Henry say, ‘give me liberty or give
          me death.’

          Imagine it is 1776, and we were watching the 54 signers of the Declaration of Independence, stand together and pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to igniting the promise of America.

          Imagine it was 1777, and we were watching General Washington as he lost battle after battle after battle in the freezing cold as his soldiers with no shoes, were dying, fighting for freedom against the most powerful army in the world. That too seemed unimaginable.

          Imagine it is 1933 and we were listening to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tell America at a time of crushing depression, at a time of a gathering storm abroad, that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

          Imagine it is 1979 and you and I were listening to Ronald Reagan and he was telling us, that we would cut the top marginal tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28%. That we would go from crushing stagnation to booming economic growth, to millions being lifted out of poverty and into prosperity and abundance. That the very day he was sworn in, our hostages who were languishing in Iran would be released. And that within a decade, we would win the cold war and tear the Berlin wall to the ground.

          That would have seemed unimaginable and yet with the grace of God that’s exactly what happened. From the dawn of this country, at very stage America has enjoyed God’s providential blessing over and over again when we faced impossible odds, the American people rose to the challenge. Compared to that, repealing Obamacare and abolishing the IRS, ain’t all that tough.

          The power of the American people when we rise up and stand for liberty knows no bounds.

          If you’re ready, to join a grassroots army across this nation, coming together and standing for liberty, I’m going to ask you to break a rule here today and to take out your cell phones. And to text the word, ‘constitution’, to the number 33733. You can also text ‘imagine.’ We’re versatile. Once again, text ‘constitution’, to 33733. God’s blessing has been on America from the very beginning of this nation. And I believe God isn’t done with America yet.

          I believe in you. I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of America. And that is why today, I am announcing that I am running for President of the United States.

          It is a time for truth. It is a time for liberty.

          It is a time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States. I am honored to stand with each and every one of you. Courageous conservatives. As we come together to reclaim the promise of America, to reclaim the mandate, the hope and opportunity for our children, and our children’s children we stand together for liberty.

          This is our fight. The answer will not come from Washington it will come from only the men and women across this country from men and women, from people of faith, from lovers of liberty, from people who respect the Constitution, it will only come as it has come at every other time of challenge in this country.

          When the American people stand together and say we will get back to the principles that made this country great. We will get back and restore that shining city on a hill, that is the United States of America. Thank you and God Bless you!

          Go ahead and point out the resemblance to a caliphate.

        5. avatar karlb says:

          I am pretty sure Caliphate is used as a metaphor, here. Cruz does seem to be part of the Dominionist movement, and I am pretty sure the writer was alluding to that.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I am pretty sure Caliphate is used as a metaphor, here. Cruz does seem to be part of the Dominionist movement, and I am pretty sure the writer was alluding to that.

          Right. To militant atheists, any religious person who is part of elected government, and exercises his or her constitutionally protected right to free speech to express religious beliefs, wants to form a theocracy. What a load of bull. News flash: people like Ted Cruz, who profess ardent support for the constitution, also ardently support the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.

          Whether or not it offends your delicate sensibilities, Christians get a say in government, too. The Establishment Clause doesn’t override the structure of our constitutional republic, with democratically elected representatives, and our democratic legislative process.

        7. avatar karlb says:

          Do I have delicate sensibilities because I used the word metaphor? Lighten up, Francis.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That’s an odd misinterpretation – or a very weak straw man. “Delicate sensibilities” applies to anyone who hears a politician mention faith and automatically gets offended, or believes that politician is trying to establish a theocracy.

        9. avatar karlb says:

          Chip, I am sorry, but I cannot tell if you are calling me or LarryinTexas a radical atheist. I do not really understand what you mean by that, but either way, I do not see how what either Larry or I wrote would make you think we were radical atheists.

          Now, about Cruz just being a Christian who simply stated his beliefs in a deity, I would have to point to his inclusion of the “city on a hill” phrase in the speech he gave. You are a very smart and well-read man, and we both know that this line goes straight back to the Puritans who came to the New World to establish a theocracy. Of course, he did not call for a theocracy, but he alluded to those who did create a theocracy in New England, and he said that was something we should look to as a goal: “We will get back and restore that shining city on a hill . . . .”

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Now, about Cruz just being a Christian who simply stated his beliefs in a deity, I would have to point to his inclusion of the “city on a hill” phrase in the speech he gave. You are a very smart and well-read man, and we both know that this line goes straight back to the Puritans who came to the New World to establish a theocracy. Of course, he did not call for a theocracy, but he alluded to those who did create a theocracy in New England, and he said that was something we should look to as a goal: “We will get back and restore that shining city on a hill . . . .”

          It wasn’t Puritans who coined the phrase “shining city on a hill.” It was Jesus, in Matthew 5:14-16:

          “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

          Perhaps Cruz’s statement can be interpreted differently by a non-Christian. But to me, as a Christian, that statement means nothing more than the 80% or so of Americans who profess to be Christian living their lives in a manner such that the American body of Christ (i.e. the people who profess to be Christians) are the “shining city on a hill” – which, coincidentally, is what Christ was talking about. The phrase refers to Christian people, not countries.

      2. avatar JWM says:

        A “coven”? WTF?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Jerry Falwell’s “university”? You’re thinking they do not major in witchcraft?

  16. avatar Only Questions says:

    And the net effect of the Gun Free Schools and Gun-Free School Zones Acts are what, exactly?

    Is there a distinction which can be made between the heinously conscienceless, premeditated and pre-planned act of murdering innocents in ‘Gun-Free Zones’ and a ‘terrorist’ attack?

    Is it possible, if not probable that the number of deaths could have been limited had the adults present been armed?

    For those accustomed to carrying firearms on their person, would you say that some aspect of your overall mindset is notably different than that of people who do not own firearms, are thus unarmed, unable and unprepared for defensive response?

    With knowledge of actual events having now entirely dispelled previously held delusions of safety and security — is there any rationally valid reason for continuing to prohibit responsible adults, such as administrators and teachers, who are licensed and willing to carry firearms concealed for defense of themselves and others in their charge from doing so?

    1. avatar DickG says:

      “And the net effect of the Gun Free Schools and Gun-Free School Zones Acts are what, exactly? ”
      .
      Dead children!
      .

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        As expected.

  17. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Since I’ll be meeting with Senator Cruz next week, I’ll be sure pass along the TTAG community’s concerns and report back his responses.

    Well, OK, it’s more like my wife and I will be two of perhaps several hundred people who donated early and hefty to his campaign on Monday, and so we got invited to an impersonal and overcrowded meet and greet with him next week here in Houston.

    *Maybe* I can score a photo of us smiling and shaking hands, but that’s about it.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      And if you later reveal that you were concealed carrying a gun he might freak out on twitter.

      Well, no, he won’t.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “*Maybe* I can score a photo of us smiling and shaking hands, but that’s about it.”

      Head on over to the TTAG Pro shop and pick up a TTAG polo shirt…

      It’ll look really good in the photo….

      http://www.cafepress.com/thetruthaboutguns?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=aw&utm_term=78888&utm_content=0&awc=4102_1427427927_5557d4e781c68a73c968899de45b82f0

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Is Cruz a “natural born citizen?” The short answer is “Yes.” Here’s the definitive article on the subject from the Harvard Law Review, written by a liberal and a conservative. They both came to the same conclusion.

    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

    FWIW, Obama could have been born on the moon and he’d still be a natural born citizen, since his mother was a US citizen (just like Cruz’s mother).

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Honestly I never saw the point behind the birther idiocy. They are more hung up on his legal status than they are on what he’s actually doing in office. Once he posted a valid replacement birth certificate, they then claimed it was a forgery.

      0bama is an American, de jure. I don’t think he stands for what this country stand for, and in that sense, he’s un-American, but there’s no test for that in the Constitution.

      Guess what? I have both my original and a replacement certificate, the replacement looks nothing like the original (which was banged out on a typewriter on blue paper, ah the tech of the 1960s); it’s basically a statement to the effect that that state has me in their records. That’s all 0bama’s is, and both are legally valid. Not only is he a citizen for the reasons you explain, he was, as far as anyone can document, born in the United States. Case closed.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Fascinating. What I think I read is that our definition of a natural born citizen is largely from usage, tradition through the years. I can buy that, although it seems it really should be encoded somewhere, even though, so far as I know, the presidency is the only place it makes a difference. But I don’t see a foundation for the reverse, that complete foreigners, even illegal foreigners, who give birth within the US borders, the child is also a natural born citizen of the US. My understanding, forever, has been either parent, or born within the borders, all are natural born citizens. But I don’t know where that came from. Thanks for that link, though, I didn’t know we had that many examples. Goldwater was a trip, Article II includes provision for a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but does not mention the concept of the citizen of a state when the state is annexed into the US. Someone apparently really does have “common sense”.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Goldwater was born before Arizona became a state, true. But Arizona was a US territory (or part of other US territories) long before he was born. “Annexed” isn’t the right word here, by any means!

        There’s no requirement that you be born in a state; if there WERE a requirement for where one was born (and it looks like there really isn’t), it would be “somewhere in US territory.”

        People mentioning McCain don’t mention he was born in the Canal Zone, which at the time was US territory.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If not “annexed”, what? I should know, since I was around for the addition of HI and AK, but I don’t recall what their addition was called.

          And didn’t America PAY for the Panama Canal? It should still be American territory.

        2. avatar BlueBronco says:

          @LarryinTx: We had something like a 99 year lease on it. Peanut Carter gave it back early.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Larry, they were “admitted to the union” as states.

          “Annexed” means the territory is added to US possessions. Arizona Territory (and alaska, and Hawaii) were US territory before they became states, hence making them states was not an annexation.

          I believe Texas was annexed at the same time it became a state–i.e., it became US territory at the same time it became a state–so (being as you probably have Texas’ example foremost in your mind) that might be the cause of your confusion.

    3. avatar BlueBronco says:

      That’s why I thought the birther crap was stupid as well. Ann Dunham was an American citizen. Granted, she consorted with commies and Muslims.

  19. avatar William B. says:

    Have you checked out the irrational loons over at Raw Story? Their link to “about us” doesn’t say anything about them, but if you want to know how radical that radical “progressives” can be, look at their wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raw_Story

  20. avatar Dustin says:

    Except he doesn’t think you should have the Right to Bear arms unless you pay a bunch of money, get added to a government database, get photographed and fingerprinted, don’t let anyone find out you have it, beg for permission, and be treated like a convicted child rapist for the rest of your life.

    Yeah, totally supports the right to keep arms, but not the right to bear arms.

  21. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I could easily vote for Cruz. “He’s got no experience”. Like JFK? I’ve NEVER seen the left-wing/ progtard firestorm as with Cruz either. The natural-born thing is a non-event. I also understand he renounce his Canadian citizenship. Whatever…Canada is way better than Kenya LOL.

    1. avatar BlueBronco says:

      Cruz clerked for the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. He is a U.S. Senator. What is wrong with idiots.

  22. avatar BlueBronco says:

    Leftist wingnuts would play with their brains if they had any. Damn.

  23. avatar John says:

    Cruz is a great American

  24. avatar Pg2 says:

    More of the same….fake left vs right dog and pony show. Cruz is just another candidate bought and owned by AIPAC.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email