Posted on 12/06/2015 7:29:20 PM PST by Isara
Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) said Sunday that President Obama's foreign and national security policy has made the world more dangerous, and that the president's prime-time Oval Office address on terrorism had been overly political, failing to clarify how he would defeat the Islamic State.
"On December 7, 1941, in response to Pearl Harbor, FDR did not give a partisan speech, rather he called on Americans to unite and 'win through to absolute victory'," Cruz said in a statement.
"If I am elected President, I will direct the Department of Defense to destroy ISIS. And I will shut down the broken immigration system that is letting jihadists into our country. Nothing President Obama said tonight will assist in either case," he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State.
Cruz, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, said earlier Sunday that Obama should start using the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" and stop allowing in refugees from countries "with a significant al-Qaeda or ISIS presence." Cruz introduced a bill that would bar Syrian Muslim refugees from entering the United States. He has said that Christians should be allowed in the United States and that there is "no meaningful risk" that Christians would commit terrorism.
"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," Cruz said. The recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., "confirmed that radical Islamic terrorists are at war with the West."
The Texas senator said the fact that one of the San Bernardino attackers, Tashfeen Malik, came into the United States on a visa, underscores the need for tighter security.
"She went through the same background checks that the president says the refugees from Syria will go through," he said. "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."
Cruz also said that Obama should not call for limiting gun rights in the aftermath of the shootings.
"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," Cruz said.
Did he have any Styrofoam columns nearby?
Was a paper mache battleship cleaving the stormy seas behind him?
All that speech did was increase C02 levels around DC.
===>>> “Nothing President Obama said will help destroy the Islamic State” <<<===
Opie knows that.
He doesn’t actually want to destroy ISIS - he just wants suckers to believe that he does.
Something wrong with that poll.
Marco Rubio isn’t ready to replace Fred Rogers or do voice overs for Cornflake S. Pecially.
He has shown he does not want to destroy it and, in fact,
has armed it.
Blarney Obama makes Jimmy Carter look decisive.
I love that Sen. Cruz said he will direct the DOD to DESTROY ISIS - that is the only way.
Obama is an enemy combatant who has placed other Islamists in our government. He needs to be removed and thrown in prison before he totally destroys the country.
He thought he had Isis physically contained and controlled in Syria but failed to account for their ability to export their influence globally. Now we all just need to give up our constitutional rights because of his poor judgment I guess.
With all due respect Mr.Cruz I sure as hell didn’t need you, or anyone else, to tell me that.
As I am hearing clips of Obama’s speech I am reminded that he tried very hard to hang any failure to take down ISIS on Congress. That was interesting given the weakness of this Congress. He said he had done all this stuff and now Congress needs to do blah blah blah. Yeah, right. Not so fast, bud. You own the failure.
[[He has said that Christians should be allowed in the United States and that there is “no meaningful risk” that Christians would commit terrorism]]
It’s amazing that the left get it absolutely backwards- Well, not amazing, but sick- preventing Christian Syrians from entry while allowing fighting age muslims in and castigating Americans for opposing it
Yup. He says nothing. The problem is he says nothing so well the sheeple believe him.
There is a long history of excluding those who would harm this country. It has been diluted by progressives, but it could be revived to America’s benefit.
Keeping Extremists Out: The History of Ideological Exclusion and the Need for Its Revival
By James R. Edwards Jr. September 2005
Related Publications: Video, Transcript
Download this Backgrounder as a pdf
Read the panel discussion transcript
James R. Edwards, Jr., Ph.D., is an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute, co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, and contributor to several published volumes concerning immigration issues. His writings have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Times, Human Events, and other publications.
America has often faced the threat of foreigners promoting radical ideologies, including Jacobinism, anarchism, communism, fascism, and now Islamism. It is an unavoidable consequence of mass immigration. The higher the level of immigration, the more likely it is that individuals espousing hatred and violence toward America will gain entry. But whatever the level of immigration, excluding or removing noncitizens from the United States based on their promotion of such beliefs (”ideological exclusion”) can help to protect the country. Historically such efforts have played this role, especially during the 20th century. With the end of the Cold War, Congress effectively repealed ideological exclusion, meaning that only active terrorists on watch lists could be barred, while those promoting the ideologies of such terrorists would have to be admitted. To end this vulnerability, ideological exclusion should be restored, allowing aliens to be excluded or deported not only for overt acts but also for radical affiliations or advocacy. Such grounds for exclusion and removal should be based on characteristics common to the many varieties of extremism, rather than target a specific ideology. .http://cis.org/HistoryIdeologicalExclusion
Sure sounds that way.
Cruz is just parroting Trump.
Nothing wrong with that.
I just listened to an excerpt of FDR’s December 8, 1941 speech.
Cruz has it figured out dead on.
The talk show hosts should play it up against Obama’s stuff.
I will add this, though.
The Henry Kissinger 4.0 Republican Establishment don’t want an absolute all out victory against terrorism either.
They are also in bed with Saudi and Gulf Arab $$$$$ to keep our businesses running and helping to finance our deeply in debt nation as a whole.
So in the end both our Uniparties support a limited Vietnam style war against terrorists.
LOL! Agreed!
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.