Posted on 12/05/2015 6:36:12 PM PST by JSDude1
To protect American national security we must first understand what threatens American national security. We must grasp who our enemies are, what animates them, and how they work together — despite their internecine rivalries — to destroy us from without and within. We must stop trying to define “true Islam†and start restoring our own principles as our guide: liberty, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and peace through strength. The vast majority of Americans still believe in these principles. It is Washington that has lost faith. It is Washington that looks at liberty’s enemies and sees friends; that looks at anti-Western Islamic supremacists and sees “moderates†it can play ball with; that looks at lawbreakers and tut-tuts that “the system is broken.†Reinvigorating American principles will require taming Washington. It calls for restoring the Constitution as a vital limit on government, not a relic . . . or an obstacle. Ted Cruz gets this. Many Republicans talk the talk — we hear it in every election season, right up until it is time to stop campaigning and start governing. Senator Cruz walks the walk. That is why I believe he should be the next president of the United States. Cruz understands that the most immediate enemy the United States confronts on the world stage is Islamic supremacism, which ignites jihadist violence through its state sponsors, terror networks, and activist organizations. The senator has not just fought against President Obama’s disastrous Iran deal, which enriches the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism while making it a threshold nuclear power. Cruz has concurrently pushed for the designation, at long last, of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427983/ted-cruz-for-president-2016-candidate-would-fight-islamic-supremacism
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Yes, so hows ‘bout leaving off the “radical” adjective when describing islam?
Maybe a little easier to read:
To protect American national security we must first understand what threatens American national security. We must grasp who our enemies are, what animates them, and how they work together — despite their internecine rivalries — to destroy us from without and within. We must stop trying to define “true Islam” and start restoring our own principles as our guide: liberty, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and peace through strength.
The vast majority of Americans still believe in these principles. It is Washington that has lost faith. It is Washington that looks at liberty’s enemies and sees friends; that looks at anti-Western Islamic supremacists and sees “moderates” it can play ball with; that looks at lawbreakers and tut-tuts that “the system is broken.”
Reinvigorating American principles will require taming Washington. It calls for restoring the Constitution as a vital limit on government, not a relic . . . or an obstacle.
Ted Cruz gets this. Many Republicans talk the talk — we hear it in every election season, right up until it is time to stop campaigning and start governing. Senator Cruz walks the walk. That is why I believe he should be the next president of the United States.
Cruz understands that the most immediate enemy the United States confronts on the world stage is Islamic supremacism, which ignites jihadist violence through its state sponsors, terror networks, and activist organizations. The senator has not just fought against President Obama’s disastrous Iran deal, which enriches the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism while making it a threshold nuclear power. Cruz has concurrently pushed for the designation, at long last, of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.
Hmmm, I think Trump is still a good contender too.
He has a different way of showing disdain for politics as usual, but he definitely shows it.
Oh, Ted is good — stained-glass good, alabaster-saint good. There’s a story about a company that was in serious doubt when it hired its best CEO candidate, because the fellow had never failed. They therefore had no idea how he would handle failure. After much misgiving, they hired him anyhow and he did wonderfully to the point of the writing of the account, but the point remains. There may be a reason that Trump is doing better in the polls and it’s perhaps because he looks more “human.”
His only problem is going to be having Congress listen to him. Not going to happen. He will be frustrated just like Obama. He will end up having to do EO’s like Obama. The Senate especially will want him to fail and be a one-termer.
I'm not complaining since I like the good publicity for Ted Cruz, but it's already posted with 175+ replies here if anyone is interested in other comments:
CRUZ BUMP!
Ted has my vote.
When National Review starts pushing Cruz, you know they’ve gone desperate to take out Trump.
Trump has no respect for or clarity about Constitutionally enumerated and separated powers. Even if he was going to do what he promises (which I doubt), the exercise as promised would set terrible precedents should another leftist ever occupy the oval office.
This is where the deal making aspect becomes important. If conservatives, finding Trump on the ascendancy with the American public, just dig in their heels and frown, the Trump tendency will go one way. If, like Jeff Sessions, they endeavor to make hay while the sun shines, the Trump tendency will go another way.
It may be a matter of a choice that God puts on the table and naysaying will be in vain — it’s work with what open door you have or else you get your self fulfilled doom prophecy.
“Trump has no respect for or clarity about Constitutionally enumerated and separated powers. Even if he was going to do what he promises (which I doubt), the exercise as promised would set terrible precedents should another leftist ever occupy the oval office.”
The precedents have already been set, so you really have no point.
And how do you ‘know’ Trump has no knowledge of how our government was set up? You’re just guessing on that
I think you got it in a nutshell.
The relatability factor is much higher with Trump. Rush calls him the blue-collar billionaire. His business sense and not being beholden to donors ain't bad either.
There may be a reason that Trump is doing better in the polls and it’s perhaps because he looks more “human.â€
......................................................
....and more sincere. Trump has the gift of speaking to people in a language they understand, not “over them” as Cruz tends to do. Cruz can’t win. Trump CAN win. If you want hillery for President, just insist on voting for the weaker man and you will get your wish. TRUMP 2016!
I’d be happy with Cruz, but I’d like him better as Trump’s VP.
Trump seems to have an interesting approach, granted this is based on glimpses of him that have appeared in media such as Rolling Stone so this is not on the biblical assurance level, but it seems to make sense.
Trump seems to want to be a mirror to the public in a process of refining a consensus of what it would need to make America great. And he also seems to be an idea sorter and winnower. The input into such a candidate has far more influence on the final result, than input to traditional candidates would. Some people call this an amateur run of a clueless liberal. I’d cautiously call this opportunity. We aren’t used to such an attitude in the political sphere. Last time we heard serious talk like this was the “Contract With America.”
At any rate it beats being “community organized” like Barack Obama has put maximum effort into doing to America. And for whatever reason, the idea is still selling well after six months of wear. It may be time to view this from the standpoint of a shining sun in which we either will or won’t make hay.
Trump has no respect for or clarity about Constitutionally enumerated and separated powers.
........................................................
Back up your ridiculous claim. Furnish direct quotes that show Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution which you claim as fact! i don’t believe you and i wouldn’t trust the National Review past my front door. Just another attempt to smash Trump by the Establishment.
That's because they are largely anachronistic in terms of realpolitik (remember Pelosi's gagging fit when asked where Congress got the power to require health insurance. did it cost her the speakership). If we are to be ruled by power politics, I'd prefer it be by someone who largely agrees with my views.
I prefer Ted Cruz, but I am also convinced he does not have the skill set to defeat opponents with the political capital to change the rules when they're losing.
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.