Posted on 12/08/2015 8:56:22 AM PST by VinL
GOP presidential contender Ted Cruz said Tuesday that he disagrees with rival Donald J. Trump's plan to ban Muslims from coming into the United States until the federal government can ensure that those coming into the nation do not pose a threat to the country.
"I do not agree with his proposal," the Texas senator said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “I do not think it is the right solution.â€
Mr. Cruz said that some have encouraged him to criticize Mr. Trump, but said he will not to so. Instead, he said he is pushing solutions aimed at putting a three year moratorium on refugees from Syria and Iraq, and giving governors more power to stop refugees from being resettled in their states.
Mr. Trump has tangled with most of the candidates in the GOP field ..with the exception of Mr. Cruz .. though he warned at a rally in South Carolina that he will respond in kind if Mr. Cruz attacks him.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The Crusades were a defensive action, fought in response to over 400 years of Muslim aggression - 100s of attacks on land and sea, that culminated with Islam conquering all of the Christian Kingdoms of North Africa, the Holy Lands, nearly half of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain), and heading towards France.
It was not until the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire begged Pope Urban II to intervene that the 1st Crusade began. However, the Crusades eventually failed due to feudalism. It was the Feudal Lords who raised the Crusading armies, and many of their ranks were not filled with well-trained soldiers; but, more importantly, some of these Feudal Lords were less than honorable, chasing their own personal goals - and from these scurrilous individuals comes the negative propaganda so often regurgitated today. The sacking of Jerusalem was chief among these notorious actions.
However this moral failure was not the fault of the Catholic Church - the Popes never ordered, nor did they condone this behavior. Quite the contrary, it was condemned by Church authorities. But few care to ever read the actual history of what transpired.
Since I am married to a Peruvian woman (yes, you actually need to make that clarification now) and spent most of my life in and around Hispanic communities, I would not be one to play such a game. However, the Mexicans and the Mexican government are really pushing all my buttons with their constant arrogant Aztlan crap - If not for the U.S. saving their bacon, they would all be speaking French.
As a matter of fact - I approved their usage just this morning. ;p
Excluding immigration from specific countries is the president’s call - as CnC ... Congress has nothing to say about it. Otherwise these gaggle of fools we presently have would not be so up in arms. My guess is the establishment numb nuts are scared s**tless of Trump, because they know that if he gets the Presidency, their days of PC game playing are over.
Ban those from muslim countries. Thats what Trump should have said and Cruz should be advocating.
Most muslim countries ban Jews.
All muslim countries have sharia law.
Surveys from muslims in muslim countries show over 90% have a hatred toward Jews.
Europe is not TECHNICALLY a Muslim Country yet.
I hear your point and I might be more disturbed by Cruz’s position if it were really starkly wrong. Of course, Trump’s blanket ban has the appeal of offering more security. But one has to know, can it be done. IOW, we know for certain there would be lawsuits seeking injunctions against such a policy from day one. Similarly, is it politically sustainable? We know the every organ of the left here and around the world, together with the muzzies are going to go bat-shit insane if the policy is enacted. I don’t really give a rat’s assume about their feelings, but they can still raise a new enormous amount of hell. Never mind the DemocRats, the Republic, are already gnashing their teeth very the announcement by Trump before the first primary.
No, but because Cruz attempts to ride two horses with one ass - and his statement makes that patently obvious, when one considers that Muslims the world over have all but proven beyond the shadow of doubt that the majority of them are possessed with a blood lust against any who are not Muslim. Cruz cannot believably assert otherwise.
So, his statement comes across as a dangerously naive form of legalism, parsed and disingenuous.
I do believe that Senator Cruz blew his decent chance at winning the BIG CHAIR - he just does not know it yet.
Ask yourself this question - how many “Joe Six Pack” Americans will align with Trump on this issue, and how many will align with Cruz? I think the answer is a no-brainer.
Cruz proposes a moratorium based on country of origin, instead of religion.
This accomplishes much the same thing — and avoids the media B.S.
After all, even Jimmah Carter banned Iranians. . . . .
Does Cruz mention a moratorium on France? Germany?
The SB shooters should have been on a Terror Watch List. Period.
And what about the ones who illegally cross the border that we don’t know are even here. The newly converted jihadi that hasn’t come up on the radar yet, but acts. They could be born here.... 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants. We keep taking more and more with no end is sight. The list would be a near impossible task.
The most immediate problem is Obama’s hope and change for America....that change is not what most Americans signed on for. And he is pushing his agenda over the useless GOPe. Here come the Syrians.
Ted Cruz is wrong ... Yikes !
Wha ...???
Thank you for that clarification. I think Cruz is right on this.
And while I don’t support Trump as a candidate, I think he has the right idea, but isn’t going about it the right way. Ted Cruz on the other hand, seems to know exactly what avenues to take, to get the job done, which is why he has my support.
I’m appalled at how quickly everyone is to jump on Ted Cruz, when the article posted isn’t even accurately quoting him.
I thought FReepers were smarter than that...but I guess reading the article and/or finding out exactly what Ted DID say, is too much before the knee jerk reactions.
Cruz introduced a bill to impose a three-year moratorium on refugees from countries where the Islamic State or Al Qaeda controls a “substantial amount” of territory.
“The reason is simple: We have been told by the FBI they cannot vet these refugees, and our first obligation should be protecting our national security,” Cruz said at a news conference Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill.
A second new provision Cruz urged leaders in Congress to “pass immediately” is an opt-out option for state governors to decide not to allow refugees into their states, despite President Barack Obama’s executive direction that they do so. Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joined Cruz at the press conference and said that Cruz’s legislation will make it possible for him to protect his state’s citizens.
About 30 governors - Democrats and Republicans - have said they don’t want to resettle Syrian refugees in their states, Cruz said. “Those officials are doing their jobs. They’re honoring their commitments to the men and women who elected them. We need a president who will do the same.”
Cruz also touted his Expatriate Terrorist Act, which he introduced last month but was blocked by Democrats on Capitol Hill. The bill would change current law to say that Americans who join forces with terrorists overseas will forfeit their U.S. citizenship.
“We should not be allowing ISIS terrorists to come into America with a U.S. passport and wage jihad against innocent citizens,” he said. Cruz called his legislative proposals “reasonable, common-sense steps” to keep Americans safe.
“We know our top obligation is doing everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack, to prevent another San Bernardino attack,” he said. “Because as long as the federal government is not doing its job, we know there will be another and another and another.”
______________________________________
I don’t see the problem with his plan. It seems to cover all the bases necessary to block the wrong people from coming in. And once again, while Trumps suggestion sounds great, what is his “plan” to do what he suggests?
I wonder how many have read the statement Ted gave, before Obama’s lame speech the other night? Because it seems to me, a lot of the criticism I am seeing of Ted, is because he hasn’t said or specified a lot of things. Well, he did in this statement:
HOUSTON, Texas – Presidential candidate Ted Cruz released the following statement in advance of President Obama’s White House address:
The recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino have further confirmed that radical Islamic terrorists are at war with the West. The attack in San Bernardino was the worst Islamic terrorist attack on American soil since the attack on Ft. Hood in my home state of Texas.
At the time of that attack, the President insisted that it was a case of “workplace violence†ignoring the clear evidence that it was a terrorist attack. I was proud to have been able to help ensure that each of the victims of the Ft. Hood attack finally received a Purple Heart for their sacrifice.
The reality is that what President Obama, Secretary Kerry and Hillary Clinton have done has not worked. Their policies have in fact made the world more dangerous. It is time for a dramatic shift in both foreign and national security policy.
Tonight when President Obama addresses the nation, I hope that he will acknowledge and take responsibility for the failed policies of his administration and will take concrete steps to reverse the damage done.
He should start by finally calling our enemy by its name. Denying who the enemy is will only delay their defeat. The terrorists call themselves the Islamic State. So tonight, I challenge President Obama to finally acknowledge the enemy that the United States and our allies face. It is radical Islamic terrorism.
Second, after naming our enemy, the President should lay out a bold strategy to defeat ISIS, not to try to change the subject to gun control or the compliant media headline to global warming, but rather lay out a plan for decisive action for victory over evil.
Third, Americans want to know how this administration intends to keep them safe here at home. Border security is national security. We can no longer accept a border that is not secure and the President should announce the immediate steps he will take to ensure that it is.
We now know that one of the attackers was here on a visa. She went through the same background checks that the President says the refugees from Syria will go through. We also know that ISIS has made it clear that they intend to infiltrate the refugees in order to get to the United States. That can’t happen.
The President should place an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence, such as Syria. I’ve introduced legislation to make this happen; it is not a desired step, but a necessary step for the security of the United States.
Finally, the President should resist using terrorist attacks to try to take away the rights of law-abiding Americans. Millions of Americans have chosen to protect themselves and their families by purchasing a firearm. This is their right; indeed protecting their families is their obligation. The President should be looking to stop those who would do us harm – not attempting to take away the constitutional liberties of millions of innocent Americans.
The American people know that the threat is very real. They will be looking for the President to address restoring America’s role in the world, defeating ISIS, securing the border, and keeping them safe from radical Islamic terrorism here at home.
They want to know the specific steps the President intends to take to keep them safe.
We need American leadership, and we need America winning again. The world does as well.
I look forward to the President’s remarks.
Here's what he's officially stated since, I presume, the San Bernardino attack (but can't find a posting date):
"The President should place an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence, such as Syria. I've introduced legislation to make this happen; it is not a desired step, but a necessary step for the security of the United States."
Looks as straightforward as his language about immigration -- that illegals are deported when they're apprehended. Illegals are illegals. "Categorically opposed to amnesty." Enforce the laws that exist and deport them. It's as if he doesn't take Trump's bombastic approach, it's assumed he therefore opposes Trump.
Until I read the source at the post, so far it looks like an interpretation of Cruz (and Trump, for that matter) compared to Trump, instead of the men's statements.
About all I can glean from the excerpt at the top is that Cruz might simply reject what the journalists present as Trump's qualifier "until the federal government can ensure that those coming into the nation do not pose a threat to the country."
it could be that Cruz thinks that's the wrong cut-off point. I don't see anything in what's provided to indicate what's being implied, that Cruz is "against" Trump's mission to end these dangerous refugees in the U.S. I'll try later for the Washington Times site.
Please, I’d like to hear some reasoned argument.
***********
I’m afraid you are really, really limiting your response pool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.