Ted Cruz's True Record on Military Funding and National Security Is Unassailable

As a military pilot and veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I am proud that this week Ted Cruz showed us again why he is the candidate best qualified to be commander-in-chief. Yesterday he laid out a serious, detailed plan for a Reagan-style rebuild of our military that will enable us to utterly defeat the radical Islamic terrorists who have vowed to destroy us. Senator Cruz understands that the essence of "peace through strength" is having the strength to maintain peace, and he's ready to do this hard work. I am proud to have endorsed him and will be proud to serve under him.

Ted Cruz has proven to be a leader who is not afraid to stand up to bullies. He is true to his word. As a combat veteran, I am convinced Ted Cruz is the leader who will keep us safe, support our troops, and defend our nation.

Although Marco Rubio has promised not to "badmouth other Republicans," he and his campaign are now spreading the falsehood that Cruz doesn't care about our troops and are wrongly smearing a good man. They should know better.

The Rubio team has criticized Cruz for voting against National Defense Authorization Acts, suggesting that he's weak on defense. But Cruz had substantive objections to some of provisions in the acts, not to their funding levels. In legislation, sometimes you have to vote no to get to a better yes. You do that because you care about the troops and the Constitution they are sworn to defend.

He slams Cruz's principled stand, but Rubio didn't even show up to vote on final passage of the NDAA in October 2015. The next month, he skipped as well the defense-appropriation vote that actually funds the military.

Cruz was there to do his job and voted to fund our troops. Moreover, in March 2015 he voted for Rubio's own amendment that would have raised the defense budget from $620 to $697 billion for fiscal year 2016.

And Cruz has laid out the most detailed plan to rebuild the military. It includes increasing our Army to at least 525,000 trained and fully equipped soldiers, more than in Rubio's proposal. Cruz's plan increases equipment as well. It rebuilds our Navy, ensuring that we have at least 350 ships, and our Air Force, ensuring at least 6,000 aircraft, including airplanes and 1,500 tactical fighter aircraft.

Under Cruz, we can be assured that we have the strongest military in the world. To suggest otherwise doesn't match the record or the character of my friend and colleague Ted Cruz.

Americans' real concern should be with Rubio's candidacy. He's made deals with Democrats at great cost to our national security. As a member of the Gang of Eight, not only did he support massive amnesty while failing to secure the border, but he also supported giving the president unilateral authority to admit more refugees who have not been properly vetted. And he's stood by that dangerous proposition. Senator Cruz and other leaders in the Senate have introduced legislation to ban the entry of not-properly-vetted refugees from terrorist-ridden regions. Senator Rubio has chosen not to support the measure.

Recall that Rubio sided with the Obama-Clinton foreign policy in Libya, which was an utter disaster. "It turned out fine," Rubio said, just five months before four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were murdered in Benghazi. Voters should ask whether that is the same kind of judgment that Rubio would use in other areas, such as Syria. He has polished his campaign rhetoric, but when the pressure mounts, he has been quick to abandon conservative principles and slow to keep his promises to voters.

We need a leader whom we can trust. We need a commander-in-chief who puts our national-security interests first. And we need a leader who will honor the Constitution and guide America into a secure and prosperous future. Ted Cruz will do just that.

Jim Bridenstine is a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a Navy pilot, he flew the E2-C Hawkeye in combat missions off the USS Abraham Lincoln. He represents Oklahomaâ€™s first congressional district.

Ted Cruz has been battling for our Republic too:

Ted Cruz: Texas Solicitor General [2003-2008]

"Appointed to the office of Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz served in that position from 2003 to 2008. The office had been established in 1999 to handle appeals involving the state, but Abbott hired Cruz with the idea that Cruz would take a "leadership role in the United States in articulating a vision of strict constructionism." As Solicitor General, Cruz argued before the Supreme Court nine times, winning five cases and losing four.".............

What No One Seems to Know About Ted Cruz's Past

........."From the start of his tenure in 2001, Cruz strategically reoriented the FTC to focus on ways in which government restricts competition. To lay a foundation, Cruz organized a conference on regulatory barriers to e-commerce. Large online companies, such as Amazon and eBay, explained that government regulation and legacy laws threatened the growth of e-commerce. For example: funeral licensing laws meant online retailers could not legally sell caskets into certain states, even though they typically offered much lower prices. Other laws hampered online sales of cars, contact lenses, and legal and medical services.".....

Ted Cruz and the South Carolina dentists

"....Long before he was a U.S. senator or a presidential candidate, Cruz was a senior official at the Federal Trade Commission. His brief but eventful tenure provides interesting insights into how he might govern. One particular episode - which, as fate would have it, took place in South Carolina - is especially revealing.

In 2003, as part of an initiative launched by a Cruz-led Task Force, the FTC filed suit against the South Carolina State Board of Dentistry. At issue was an "emergency regulation" restricting the ability of non-dentists to provide teeth cleanings, sealants, and fluoride treatments in school settings. The Board - whose 9 members included 7 practicing dentists - argued that the regulation was necessary to protect public health. The FTC countered that its true intent was to block competition from dental hygienists.

The Board insisted that, without the supervision of a dentist, a hygienist might seal in tooth decay, resulting in a dangerous abscess. When pressed on the issue, however, it could not provide a single example of this ever actually happening.

The FTC has always focused on anticompetitive restraints of trade. What Cruz brought to the table that was new, and what the Dental Board case illustrates, is a focus on government as the source of the restraint. Overreaching with respect to professional licensing is a classic example.

Such licensing can be a good thing. When you need open heart surgery, you want a licensed physician. But other examples - such as weeks of classroom instruction and years of apprenticeship to obtain a license to cut hair or arrange flowers - strongly suggest that it is the professionals themselves, rather than consumers, who are being protected."...........................

More on Cruz:

Nov 10, 2014: Cruz: 'Net Neutrality Is Obamacare For The Internet'

May 14, 2014: Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

Sept 18, 2014: Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech -- So Why Is Comcast For It?

[snip]

".....Net neutrality is an idea that would give the FCC oversight of every Internet service provider in the country. Government could next expand because each Internet service provider needs clarification when applying new net neutrality regulations. Innovation, naturally would be diminished in such a new regulatory regime, as some of the Internet service providers' funds would have to go to hiring people to deal with the FCC, as well as to complying with regulations and lobbying for better regulations. Since the late 1990s private companies have spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing America's Internet. This money could dry up if the companies can't make profits from their investments.".......

2003: Ted Cruz, the Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Office of Policy Planning, will be leaving the Federal Trade Commission at the end of January, after nearly two years in the position. Mr. Cruz has been appointed the Solicitor General of the State of Texas, and will be moving to Austin in early February.

"The agency's mission of promoting competition and protecting consumers is critically important to the function of our free-market economy and to consumers nationwide," said FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris. "Ted has been instrumental in implementing that agenda. We congratulate him on his excellent work for the FTC and wish him much success in his new position."

Mr. Cruz has led the Office of Policy Planning since June of 2001.

"Donald Trump said he was not going to take away my social security. No one else has said that." - MarMema

Excellent point! Did he tell you how he was going to do that? Social Security is basically broke, and has been on that track for 25 years. Every Congress and President has mostly just kicked the can down the road.

I could go into greater detail on the best solution for the problem, but I just remembered: This thread has nothing to do with Social Security.

I appreciate your pro-Trump sentiment, but him "saving Social Security" won't do you a bit of good if the Chinese are administering the fund amongst the smouldering ruins of this country.

National Security is pretty important, too. Give the 10 to 15 year lead time it takes to implement major weapon systems, and the fact that the world has become a high threat zone on every continent, I'd like to know - in detail - what the candidates will do to rebuild and improve the US military's fighting capability.

FReegards!

"The National Review, thatâ€™s the place to go for all your Washington Establishment needs." - RetSignman

You know, ever since Trump attacked National Review because their editorial page came out with a well reasoned, conservative opinion against Donald Trump, I've seen folks like you disparage National Review. Did you ever read any of the columnists there? Which one's specifically are "Washington Establishment"?

As I recall, they didn't use a single pejorative or crude invective in their entire article, in contrast to nearly everything that comes out of Trump's mouth. Are you saying that if ANYONE opposes Trump, for ANY reason, then they're some sort of "enemy agent" for the GOP-E or progressives? Is that the new "conservative standard"?

How about Victor David Hanson? The guy's brilliant and as solid a conservative as there is. He's there.

How about Mike Adams? He's out there in "Indian Country", standing down all comers as a tenured professor at a progressive state university. Should we kick him to the curb for the sake of Donald Trump?

How about Thomas Sowell? Is he just a rabid GOP-e mouth piece?

No, Donald Trump isn't God, and he doesn't define the conservative movement. For one thing, he's a rather late blooming messiah.

How does Trump, or supporters such as you, expect to unit the GOP in November while he's engaged in VERY personal attacks against every conservative leader and published author? I mean, I like Sarah Palin, but she just hasn't got the pull to go to the microphone in October, saying, "Hey, Donald was just joshing with you guys. Don't take that stuff said in the primaries so seriously. He'll be a great President so ya all come out to vote."

By that time, the phone will be off the hook and TV off at the residences of millions of conservatives. Bottom line: Your blanket attack, echoing Trumps, is dividing conservatives, and harmful to our chances of beating the progressives in November. Maybe you should reconsider?

FReegards.

"Do you really thing Cruz or Rubio will build this (border wall) - RetSignman

Rubio, I'm not certain, but if he pledges it I'd consider voting for him.

Cruz, I'm certain he'll take steps to control the border. If a physical wall is the best way to do that, then it'll happen if he has a GOP Congress to support the legislation. But Israel has proven that there are may effective ways to control a border, if only there's the will to do so.

I have fewer doubts about what Cruz will do, vis-a-vis conservative positions and principles, than Donald Trump. Trump to me is a high rolling, Casino shiester who'll do anything that pleases trump. Trump first and foremost, is for Trump, and everything in his past history has supported that thesis.

I think that Rubio, Bush, and Carsen are all more reliable conservatives than Trump. Then again, the campaign B.S. flying between these camps is leading me to doubt all three of them, but we're not going to find a perfect man. (Regrettably, Jesus Christ hasn't registered for this election, but I have it on good authority that He'll be back here soon!)

If I'm wrong, if Trump wins and becomes the next "Ronald Reagan (or better), I'll be pleasantly surprised. However, logic and evidence doesn't take me there.

FReegards.

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.