[fortheDeclaration]

I know how Cruz voted!

He voted for the free trade agreement and then claimed he had been deceived!

The fact that he would trust Obama in the first place shows his own gullibility.

[Yosemitest]

"I know how Cruz voted!
He voted for the free trade agreement and then claimed he had been deceived!"

WRONG !
HOW did TED CRUZ VOTE ! ? ! Click on it !
Look at the "Grouped By Vote Position", and then look at the "NAYs ---38".
And the Ninth Name down that group IS ?
Come on !
What's that NAME ?
Now look at HOW TED CRUZ VOTED on THAT VOTE.

Cruz (R-TX), Nay

Now let's really take a close look at HOW the Trans-Pacific Partnership was passed. (It took me a long time to track it down.)

Under The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, 2015 is a small block index you'll find 2 Legislation.
There you'll find Legislation timelines and under that heading you'll read
• June 24, 2015: The Senate voted in favor of stand-alone TPA legislation ATTACHED TO HR 2146 - Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act by a vote of 60-38.^[41]

Now look at HOW TED CRUZ VOTED on THAT VOTE.

Cruz (R-TX), Nay

So EVEN THOUGH the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" attached this UNPOPULAR BILL to another Bill titled "Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act", hoping that Senators would FEAR

being RIDICULED for voting AGAINST "Public Safety"
and FEAR being RIDICULED for voting AGAINST a "RETIREMENT ACR",
TED CRUZ did NOT BACK DOWN, along with Collins (R-ME), Paul (R-KY), Sessions (R-AL), and Shelby (R-AL) !

TED CRUZ
voted
AGAINST TPP !


WHY did TED CRUZ SAY he would VOTE 'NAY' ! ? !

Exclusive - - Ted Cruz: Obamatrade Enmeshed in Corrupt, Backroom Dealings

... Why does Republican Leadership always give in to the Democrats?
Why does Leadership always disregard the promises made to the conservative grassroots?

Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire - - and stay expired.
And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws.
Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote NO .

There's too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel.
For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist - - at the expense of the taxpayers.
It's a time for truth.
And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.

Let's get TED CRUZ's OWN WORD on the subjects.
It's always best to get the information from the ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Sen. Ted Cruz on the Hugh Hewitt Show ( 20:04 )

Ted Cruz
Published on Jun 11, 2015 www.tedcruz.org

If you want to save time on the video, start at 8 minutes and 50 seconds, and listen until the end.
Here's a transcript of that interview.
I'll just post the transcript for 8:50 until the end.

Senator Ted Cruz on 2016, TPA, TPP And The Islamic State
Thursday, June 11, 2015, posted by Hugh Hewitt

TED CRUZ: . . . avoid debating and trying to defend her policies.
And ...

Hugh Hewitt: Do you expect she'll discuss Libya on Saturday at Roosevelt Island, Senator Cruz?

TED CRUZ: That she will?
I doubt it in any serious length.
You know, she has been, look, to date, her campaign has been almost entirely mum.
She doesn't take questions.
And it's been devoid of substance.
When it comes to foreign policy, about the only thing she speaks on is in her book.
I mean, she did lay out some views in her book, but she hasn't on the campaign trail gotten into Libya,
she hasn't gotten in Iran and the Iranian nuclear deal,
which is the single biggest threat to our national security we're facing.
She hasn't even answered the question whether she agrees with President Obama on free trade or not.
I mean, she's just avoiding questions across the board.

Hugh Hewitt: Let's take that opportunity, then, to go and talk about free trade.
TPA, TPP, Export-Import Bank, Senator Cruz, for clarity's sake,
can you quickly give us an overview of where you are on those three issues as there's quite a lot of confusion among conservative voters
as to where different people are
and why on each of those three issues?

TED CRUZ: Sure.
There is a lot of confusion, and there's unfortunately a lot of misinformation that you can get on the internet, that people are confused.
So let's explain what each of those three are.
TPA is trade promotion authority.
That's also known as fast track.
That is the process through which free trade agreements are negotiated.
Historically since FDR, virtually every president has had fast track authority.
What fast track provides is simply
if a free trade agreement is negotiated, the Congress will vote on it up or down without amendment.
And history has demonstrated for the last 80 years that the only way to get free trade agreements adopted is to have fast track,
that if there is no fast track,
free trade agreements do not end up being negotiated.
TPA is what the Senate voted on recently.
I voted in favor of fast track, because I support free trade.
I think free trade benefits America, it creates jobs, opening markets to our farmers, to our ranchers, to our manufacturers, improves economic growth.
In Texas alone, roughly three million jobs depend upon international trade.
And if you support free trade,
the only way history has shown free trade agreements get negotiated is with fast track.
Now there is a second issue that's caused a great deal of confusion, and that is TPP.

Hugh Hewitt: Trans-Pacific Partnership.

TED CRUZ: Correct, and that is one specific trade deal that is currently being negotiated.
It is separate from TPA.
Congress has not voted on TPP.
And there's a great deal of concern about TPP.
Now I have not voted on TPP, and I haven't decided if I will support it or not, because the negotiation isn't complete.
And I'm going to wait and review
and see what the agreement is first
before assessing if it would be beneficial or harmful.

Hugh Hewitt: And you were against Export-Import, and I told people that, and we disagree on that.
But I just wanted people to understand you were yes on TPA, undecided on TPP, no on Export-Import.
And then I want to get to what you wrote today, Senator, so that we don't run out of time,
because I think your piece in the Washington Examiner is important.
You wrote about the war against the Islamic State,
and you endorsed the David Petraeus concept of an overwhelming air campaign and direct support of the Kurds.
But you did not directly address how many and when American troops, if any, have to go back.

TED CRUZ: : Right.

Hugh Hewitt: And I'm talking to General McChrystal tomorrow.
He's at the Nixon Library tonight, and he'll be in my studio tomorrow.
I think every military person I've talked to says we've got to send significant number of American troops over there
or the Islamic State will continue to erupt and threaten this country.
What do you think?

TED CRUZ: : Well, I think several things.
I think the first thing that is missing is a commander-in-chief who defines our objective up front.
And that objective should be to destroy ISIS, and indeed, more broadly, to defeat radical Islamic terrorists.
All of the problems we're seeing dealing with ISIS stem from the failure of President Obama to define that objective and to pursue a serious military strategy to accomplish it.
Indeed, President Obama just a few days ago candidly admitted that he still doesn't have a strategy to deal with ISIS,
a remarkable admission that for anyone observing and watching this,
surprised nobody, because it's evident they're not pursuing a strategy to accomplish it.
If the object is to destroy ISIS, then I think the specific means of carrying it out should be determined primary by military expertise.
Now there are a number of different components that we ought to consider employing.
First of all, as I wrote today, we should be using overwhelming air power,
not constrained and limited air strikes as we're doing now
that in many ways is really more of a photo op foreign policy,
but using air superiority to punish and pound ISIS into oblivion.
And right now, our military is operating under very constrained rules of engagement that are limiting the effectiveness of our air power.

Hugh Hewitt: Are you concerned about civilian casualties, collateral damage and creating more terrorists by virtue of our operations in close quarters?
I read the Wall Street Journal story on Mosul yesterday.
They're pretty deeply embedded.
Their precision strikes are not that precise.

TED CRUZ: Right, look, of course we should be concerned with collateral damage.
And American military power has always worked to minimize civilian deaths.
But if we are ineffective in our military strategy, that ultimately will result in far more civilian deaths,
because ISIS is oppressing and murdering Christians, murdering Jews, even murdering Muslims who do not ascribe to their radical Sharia Law.
And so we need to be using air power effectively, number one.
Number two, when it comes to boots on the ground, we have right now a tremendous opportunity,
because the Kurds are today fighting.
The Peshmerga, the fighting forces of the Kurds, are fighting ISIS today.
They have been longtime allies of America.
They've proven to be reliable allies.
And the Obama administration refuses to arm the Kurds.
Instead, they're sending the weaponry to Baghdad, which doesn't, will not pass it on to the Kurds.
This makes no sense,
because the Kurds are, in a very real sense, boots on the ground for us.
And the Kurds are fighting ISIS.
We ought to be giving them weaponry so that they can be killing ISIS.

Hugh Hewitt: And a last question, Senator, because we're running up against, I know you're on a tight schedule.

TED CRUZ: Sure.

Hugh Hewitt: Defense Appropriations bill is going to be back in the Senate soon.
There should be money in there for the Ohio-Class submarine replacement in a separate line item.
Democrats have said they're going to filibuster the Defense Appropriations Bill.
A) are you going to make sure there's the Ohio-Class money?
And B) should we break the filibuster like they broke the filibuster
to make sure our men and women get the money they need to fight this war?

TED CRUZ: Well, I think Republicans are committed,
and I'm certainly committed, to ensuring that we provide the funding that is needed both
for the elements of our nuclear triad, including the Ohio-Class submarine,
but more broadly for readiness that has been severely degraded under sequestration.
You're right that the Democrats are threatening a filibuster of the Defense Appropriation.
It's not clear they can maintain it, and so your question,
should we break the filibuster,
absolutely we should.
And I can tell you, you know, as you know, I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
On the National Defense Authorization Act, in committee, the Democrats threatened,
they told us they were going to bloc vote against the National Defense Authorization Act,
because they wanted to hold Defense funding hostage
in order to force higher spending in non-Defense areas like the EPA and the IRS.
Well, that proved to be a hollow bluff.
When it came time to vote in the committee, only a handful of Democrats voted no, and the rest voted yes.

Hugh Hewitt: But to be precise, Senator, if they did have 40-plus votes blocking Defense Appropriations, I was asking whether you ought to borrow from Harry Reid's book
and break the filibuster as he did with the D.C. Circuit nominees.
Would you be in favor of going with a simple majority vote on the motion of the chair as to the interpretation of the rules?

TED CRUZ: Okay, I didn't understand the question as you first asked it.
I do not believe that there would be the votes for Republicans to use the so-called nuclear option to end the legislative filibuster.

Hugh Hewitt: But would you support ending, would you support using it?

TED CRUZ: No, I would not,
and indeed of the 54 Republicans we have, I am not aware of any who support ending the legislative filibuster.
And the reason is in the long term, the legislative filibuster serves conservative purposes.
It slows down the legislative process.
Now that can be frustrating when we want to do good things.
But far more often than not, when Congress is moving quickly, it is moving quickly
to attack our liberty,
to strip away our rights,
to expand government.
And the legislative filibuster has prevented a great deal of mischief.
And so in the long term interest of the liberty of the citizenry, and also slowing down the growth of government,
I think we should preserve the legislative filibuster,
but we need to beat Democrats
and make the case on the merits that we've got to fund our vital national security needs.

Hugh Hewitt: Senator Ted Cruz, thank you, a topic for another day, because I think in the long run, we're all dead with ISIS and Iran
if we don't break the legislative filibuster
and they're not funding the military,
but for another time.
Senator, always a pleasure, thank you for joining us,
you've been generous with your time today.

TED CRUZ: Thank you, Hugh, God bless.

End of interview.

Trump and Rubio supporters are RARELY HONEST.

[Yosemitest]

Read and LEARN (especially about Private Property) !