Posted on 06/09/2018 11:48:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Speaking to a ballroom filled with Christian conservatives Thursday, 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz reflected on seven of the biggest victories for faith and families achieved since Donald Trump took over the White House in January 2017.
During a luncheon kicking off the annual Road to Majority Conference hosted by the influential social conservative advocacy group Faith & Freedom Coalition, the Texas senator celebrated the conservative political accomplishments of the last year and a half.
Cruz, who was the last Republican standing in Trump's way before Trump clinched the Republican nomination in 2016, has played a large role in the slim Republican-majority Senate that, he says, has led to victories for conservatives in addition to what has been accomplished by the Trump administration.
The following pages contain the seven "victories" outlined by Cruz during his 25-minute speech at the 2018 Road to Majority Conference.
1. The appointment of "principled, constitutionalist judges" There was no bigger voting issue for many Christian conservatives in 2016 than the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court and the appointment of constitutionalist judges.
Conservatives were delighted when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the bench. The former Tenth Circuit Court judge was confirmed on April 7, 2017.
In addition to the Gorsuch nomination, Trump has been successful in rapidly nominating federal judges at other levels of the judiciary.
In praising the Gorsuch selection, Cruz celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling this week in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who was fighting a six-year long legal battle after he was punished by the state government for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
"If we lived in the sort of society that those who called themselves liberal prescribe, a tolerant society, that would have been the end of the story," he said of Phillips' case. "He would have lived according to his faith and we would have respected that faith and the diversity amongst us. But there are those with a legal agenda that wanted to drive that baker out of business, to punish him and any other person of faith for daring to live according to their faith."
Cruz led several members of Congress in issuing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of Phillips.
2. Human life
Cruz also celebrated the numerous pro-life victories that have been achieved by the Trump administration.
"We have seen in the last year-and-a-half significant victories for preserving innocent life," he said.
One of the first moves Trump made on the pro-life front was reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits foreign aid from going to organizations and clinics around the world that perform abortions.
Cruz also pointed out how the U.S. pulled out of funding the United Nations Population Fund that, he says, was "complicit in China's horrific practices of forced sterilizations and forced abortions."
"We saw [the Department of Health and Human Services] issue new rules, returning to the old rules prohibiting taxpayer funding from going to Planned Parenthood and clinics that provide abortions.
"Not only that, but we saw the administration rescind the abhorrent so-called contraceptive mandate in Obamacare — a mandate that was interpreted by the Obama administration to force or to try to force believers to fund abortion-inducing drugs. The consequences of that decision is in the litigation against the Little Sisters of the Poor."
3. Tax cut
Last December, the Republican-led Congress passed the most significant tax overhaul in three decades. The tax bill, conservatives say, will lead to more money being in the pockets of families.
"Cutting taxes on small businesses, cutting taxes on farmers, cutting taxes on ranchers, cutting taxes on families, doubling the standard deduction, What does that mean?" Cruz asked. "For a couple, standard deduction goes from $12,000 to $24,000. That means next year, 90 percent of Americans will be able to fill out your taxes on a postcard."
He pointed out that under the new tax bill, marginal tax rates are reduced in every bracket.
"We saw over 4 million Americans get pay raises, get bonuses because of the tax cut of $500, $1,000, more than $1,000. I was flying a few months ago on Southwest Airlines and a flight attendant walked up to me, hugged me and said 'Thanks for the pay raise.'"
Cruz argued that one of the most integral parts of the tax cut was the doubling of the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child per year.
"If you have three kids, that is an additional $3,000 in your pocket," he said. "That's the money for your daughter to get braces. That is the money for you to take your kids on maybe the first family vacation you've been on in several years to go to Disney World, or to take your kids to a summer camp or maybe to invest in a college fund or help tuition or help pay healthcare. This is real money for people who are struggling and this is a group that cares about families."
4. Repealing of the Obamacare individual mandate
As part of the tax bill, conservatives were able to accomplish something that some thought was only a pipe dream by repealing the Obamacare individual mandate that left many liable to pay fines for not having healthcare.
"That is a big deal and something I led the fight to do in the Senate. I will tell you: back in October, there were maybe a half-dozen senators supporting us," Cruz said. "Most of the conference said 'Look, we made a run at Obamacare twice and we came up short. Let's not muck up tax reform with Obamacare.'"
He explained that he had to make the argument that repealing the mandate that individuals have health insurance would lead to millions of Americans who can't afford to pay health insurance not having to worry about paying a fine from the Internal Revenue Service every year.
"Here is how the Obamacare individual mandate works. Every year, the IRS fines 6.5 million Americans because they can't afford health insurance. Of those, roughly 80 percent earn $50,000 per year or less. Roughly 40 percent, earn $25,000 a year or less. About 1 million are Texans. I want you to imagine for a second that you are a single mom. You are working two jobs and you are struggling to make ends meet and you are trying to provide for your kids. You are not even making $25,000 a year and to add insult to injury, the IRS comes along and fines you because you can't afford to pay the premiums that have skyrocketed under Obamacare."
Cruz said that although there were only about six senators who wanted to put language to repeal the individual mandate in the tax bill in October, all 52 Republican senators ended up voting for the language in the end.
"That is a big conservative victory that no one in Washington thought we would win," he said. "Look, Obamacare is clearly the biggest unfinished promise that Republicans have. We need to finish the job. We need to keep rolling up our sleeves and finish the job and repeal every single word of Obamacare."
5. School choice tax bill amendment
An amendment that Cruz introduced to allow parents and families to extend 529 college funds to pay for K-12 education at public and private schools became the only amendment that was adopted on the Senate floor pertaining to the tax bill, according to the senator.
Under the expansion, parents can withdraw up to $10,000 per year from their 529 plans to pay for their children's primary or secondary education.
"With that, we saw the most far-reaching, federal school choice legislation that has ever passed come into law providing benefits to up to 50 million school kids across the country, enabling parents and grandparents to save for your kids and to save for your grandkids and choose the best education options for them."
6. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem
In May, Cruz attended the historic opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, a move that he and many other social conservative Christians have long pushed for.
He praised Trump for the fact that he was able to do something that presidents in both political parties have promised and failed to do.
"We had a year-and-a-half battle in the Trump administration. I interjetically argued for moving the embassy and President Trump made the right decision and now our embassy is in Jerusalem, the once and eternal capital of Israel."
7. Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal
Cruz is one of the most avid critics of the Obama administration's deal finalized in January 2016 to lift nuclear sanctions against Iran in exchange for concessions in its nuclear program for the next several years.
In fact, he and Trump held a joint rally to bash the deal in September 2015.
When Trump announced that he was pulling out of the Iran deal last month, Cruz was among the many who applauded.
"The president made the right decision to withdraw from the disastrous Obama-Iran nuclear deal. Obama had sent tens of billions of dollars to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who chants 'Death to America and death to Israel.' When he says that, I believe him," Cruz said during the conference.
He asserted that the deal would have led to Iran having nuclear weapons.
"Once again, there was a battle in the Trump administration over whether we should stay in the deal or pull out. I interjectically urged the president that the right thing to do for the national security of this country is pull out of the deal and use every force we have — economic, diplomatic and if need be, military, to ensure the ayatollah never ever gets nuclear weapons."
"We see in the federal courts all across the country, we see it in Justice Neil Gorsuch and let me be one to thank God for the victory we had this week in the Colorado [baker's case]."
I do think he is a citizen, but he was born with multiple citizenships so he is not naturally an American, not a natural born citizen.
Ted was still a Canadian citizen until 2015.
It would be interesting to see his file as to when exactly he acquired his US citizenship and how.
And why is that a bad thing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ted Cruz is not naturally an American as he was born to a foreign national father in a foreign country with multiple citizenships.
Natural born citizens are naturally Americans because they could be no other.
We still don’t know exactly how or when Ted Cruz acquired his US citizenship.
When did his parents apply for his US citizenship?
He did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2015.
RE: Ted Cruz is not naturally an American as he was born to a foreign national father in a foreign country with multiple citizenships.
This has been litigated in the Supreme Courts of at least 7 states already an ALL of these courts have decided in Ted Cruz’s favor.
Are you going to call Obama an illegitimate President as well? How many times do we have to re-litigate this?
RE: He did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2015.
His Canadian citizenship was conferred to him BY ACCIDENT OF BIRTH. That’s not his fault.
At any rate. this thread is about his DEFENSE of Trump’s policies. Instead of giving him credit for this, I see so much hate going on in this thread. I don’t know why but here we are.
RE: He refused to endorse Trump at the convention.
He told people to vote their conscience and THEY DID — For Trump.
And after Trump was elected, Cruz supported his policies ( see this thread ).
And need I remind you — Cruz was and still is a true conservative LONG before Trump announce his candidacy.
Yes, Obama was an illegitimate usurper.
The US Supreme Court in 1875, Minor vs Happerset
Chief Justice Waite:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
More info at link
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
From link:
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
His Canadian citizenship was conferred to him BY ACCIDENT OF BIRTH.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The same with Jindal, Haley, Rubio, Obama, Harris, etc. and their US citizenship.
They are not naturally Americans because they were born to foreign nationals with multiple citizenships, loyalties, allegiances.
Natural born citizens cannot be anything other than Americans.
People with multiple citizenships, loyalties, allegiances were EXACTLY who the founders were excluding.
RE: The same with Jindal, Haley, Rubio, Obama, Harris, etc. and their US citizenship.
Again, Ted Cruz’s mother IS American. His father’s ( who Trump accused without sufficient evidence of taking part in the plot to assassinate JFK ) loyalty to America and American values are WITHOUT QUESTION.
And again, I have to repeat this, this issue has been legally challenged in the Supreme Courts of several states and the decision has been UNANIMOUS -— Ted Cruz qualifies.
That of course is YOUR interpretation of “Natural born”.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.
This is not a particularly controversial interpretation of Article II, section 1. Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen,’ “ in the Harvard Law Review Forum:
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. . . .
Did Cruz’s mama file the necessary paperwork with the U.S. govt, for the birth of Ted to a foreign national in a foreign country? Oops, no she didn’t, too bad about that, he’s a dual citizen, naturalized in the U.S. A couple of years ago. Not eligible.
1. Constitutional Convention – “Born a Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen”:
When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]
So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II -
The precise contours of what “natural born citizen” meant in 1787 is somewhat murky.
For instance, I think it is unclear whether this phrase connotes those who are citizens at the time of their birth, as opposed to those who are citizens as a consequence of their birth.
I submit however, that there is little reason to read the phrase as equivalent to “natural born subject,” nor do I think these questions change the bottom line as a practical matter.
For the same reasons that no court disqualified John McCain for having been born in the Panama Canal Zone — and it was accepted that George Romney could run for President despite having been born in Mexico — I agree with the decision of the courts of several states when they ruled Ted Cruz eligible.
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790
There is no question about Ted Cruz’s constitutional eligibility to be elected president. Whether Cruz should be elected president, on the other hand, is another matter, and one that voters will get to decide.
RE: Did Cruz’s mama file the necessary paperwork with the U.S. govt, for the birth of Ted to a foreign national in a foreign country?
Did Ted Cruz have to be naturalized to be eligible for an American passport? NOPE. He was given a passport WITHOUT having to file for naturalization BY VIRTUE of his Mother’s citizenship.
When was this passport issued?
Did Ted Cruz have to be naturalized to be eligible for an American passport? NOPE. He was given a passport WITHOUT having to file for naturalization BY VIRTUE of his Mother’s citizenship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No one has seen his file, so you do not know this to be true.
All foreign born must file paperwork, when was his filed?
So, you haven’t seen his file either and you assume that he has done things improperly? Why not file for a FOIA?
Without it, I give him the benefit of the doubt. You are free not to give him that henefit.
True.
Can you believe the guy didn’t renounce that Canadian citizenship a long long time ago. 2015, and he had either declared or was close to it.
Simple incredible...
So we have a Republican Convention with tens of millions of people watching, and Ted’s best effort was to tell folks to vote their conscience without mentioning Trump by name.
Then he says he will vote for Trump and sits on the phones for about an hour.
Then four days before the election he appeared at three campaign sites, refusing to mention Trump by name at one of them.
All in all he probably gave two 10-20 minute talks at the other two, actually mentioning Trump by name.
So all in all, from the Convention to election day, Ted spent less than two hours trying to keep Hillary from being elected.
As for his “always Conservative” actions,... no sale.
In 1999 he was an advisor to GW. His advice on illegal immigrants was to reinforce his view that there was no general public urge to take action. (Leftist lie)
Then dear old Ted decided to take a tour urging folks not to vote for the Corker Bill. He did this for several months. Then he himself voted for it.
He came up with the idea of granting all illegal aliens amnesty. Along with that he testified that he wanted to raise the H1-B visa limit to 500% of it’s then present level.
When challenged on these issues, he said he only did it to provide a poison pill so a bill wouldn’t pass.
Several years later, Ted had to scrub the H1-B increase idea off his web site. Strangely, he had kept that aspect of the poison pill on his web site. He got caught with it there, and had to expunge it quickly.
He went to the border with Glenn Beck and handed out Teddy Bears to the children of illegal aliens there. What Conservative would do that? Would you? I certainly wouldn’t.
He told us he wouldn’t vote for the TPP bill. He then proceeded to vote for the TPA bill, which had to pass so the TPP would remain viable.
Ted played the margins all along. I know he has a lot of folks thinking he’s rock solid. I’m not one of them.
It’s election season again, and Ted is in the media telling us what a stalwart guy he is. He always does this before elections, and then he goes back to being on the margins again.
John McCain had that down pat.
The closer I examined Ted Cruz the less I liked him even before his convention antics.
He is an opportunist and his fealty to the Constitution lasts right up to where it says he can’t be President.
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.