Tag Archives: Ted Cruz

International news

The Cold War is over! We won!

President Barack Obama has declared victory, finally, in the on-going Cold War with Marxism.

On Wednesday, he is going to announce the reopening of embassies in Washington and Havana, the capital city of Cuba.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/us-and-cuba-to-re-open-embassies-119609.html?hp=l1_3

Let the healing continue.

A 50-plus year estrangement with a dirt-poor island nation that has been governed by communists is about to end. Good thing, too. Because Cuba no longer poses a threat to the United States of America, the world’s remaining superpower.

Why? Cuba’s major benefactor, the Soviet Union, vaporized into history more than two decades ago. Russia has re-emerged and while the Russians are strong, they do not pose a worldwide threat to take over the world the way the Soviet Union declared publicly it intended to do.

The Soviets once used Cuban territory as a potential launching pad for offensive missiles. But a steely U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, clamped a quarantine on Cuba, intercepting Soviet ships taking missile parts to the island. The Soviets blinked, took down the missile installations and the threat of nuclear war was averted.

Cuba has languished in poverty during entire regime of the communists.

And yet some Republicans in Congress continue to harp on the idea that Cuba’s human rights record doesn’t entitle it to enjoy full diplomatic relations with the United States. Fine. Then let’s bring our ambassadors home from, say, China, Zimbabwe and Sudan.

At least two leading GOP lawmakers, Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, have Cuban ancestry. They also are running for president. They say Cuba must remain estranged from the United States until it cleans up its human-rights act.

Come on, fellas.

Let’s get real.

The time has come to end the Cold War. We’re not going to give the Cubans a pass on whatever human rights abuses they still commit against their citizens.

We are, though, going to restore relations with a neighbor. Perhaps some added exposure to what we enjoy here will rub off on the Cubans.

 

legal news, political news

How about changing the oath of office?

IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, I, John Q. Public Servant, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of county clerk of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.

That, right there, is the oath of office county clerks must take before they can perform their duties on behalf of the people they serve in their respective counties.

In Texas, all 254 counties are governed by state statute, which means the state sets the laws by which county residents — and their elected officials — must abide.

I found it on the Texas Secretary of State’s website. It’s kind of a generic oath that county officials must take. Granted, some county officials take longer oaths, but it must include this particular pledge.

Just as an aside, I attended the swearing in on Jan. 1 of newly elected Potter County Judge Nancy Tanner and the oath she took was tantamount to the “War and Peace” version of the mandatory oath given to county officials.

I mention this oath in light of what Republican presidential candidate — and Texas’s junior U.S. senator — Ted Cruz said about how county clerks “absolutely” should be given the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Texas. He said the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage amounts to a declaration of war on religious liberty.

As I look at this oath, I don’t see any reference to the faith of the person taking it. I see nothing in there that enables the elected official to not follow all “the laws of the United States and of this State.”

I read the oath as requiring that those who take it must adhere to it — to the letter.

A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court has declared that gay marriage is now legal everywhere, in each of the 50 states. That includes Texas.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, another GOP presidential candidate, said that we could save a ton of money if we just got rid of the court. I don’t know how serious he was about that suggestion.

Sen. Cruz, though, seems to be dead serious in encouraging county clerks to violate their sacred oath, which does end with “so help me God.”

Hey, let’s just change the oath and have county clerks affirm that they’ll uphold only those laws that do not trample on their religious beliefs.

 

political news, religious news, State news

Cruz to county clerks: Sure, go ahead, break the law

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is running hard for president of the United States and he’s now taking every opportunity to have his voice heard.

Let’s take the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that legalizes gay marriage across the nation.

What’s the junior Republican Texas senator’s take on it: It ought to be OK for county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples if it violates their religious beliefs.

Let’s hold on here, young man.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/27/cruz-clerks-should-be-able-opt-out-gay-marriage-li/

County clerks in Texas take an oath to uphold the law. It doesn’t offer any qualifiers, that they can opt out of fulfilling that oath if their religious faith stands in the way.

Texas county clerks do have an option if they simply cannot authorize a marriage license to a gay couple. They can resign their public office. Indeed, when New Mexico legalized gay marriage this past year, the Roosevelt County clerk did exactly that; she quit rather than do something with which her religious faith did not believe.

“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz said in an interview with The Texas Tribune, “and you look at the foundation of this country — it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Without government getting in the way? My goodness, senator. We all are able to do all those things. We can go to church, to synagogue, to the mosque — anywhere we wish — and pray to whichever deity in which we believe. The Supreme Court decision handed down this week say not a single word about any of that.

It merely affirms that the 14th Amendment guarantees all U.S. citizens the right to “equal protection” under the law. Thus, they are entitled to marry whomever they wish.

I have no clue what the state’s county clerks are going to do, which of them will adhere to the law and which of them will declare that they just cannot in good conscience issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Those who refuse will be breaking the law they took an oath to uphold.

It’s interesting to me that Sen. Cruz keeps tossing the word “lawless” around to describe the Supreme Court, the Obama administration — and virtually anyone who disagrees with his world view.

Yet, he’s seeking a way for county clerks to evade the law. That’s my definition of “lawlessness.”

 

legal news

The court’s logic on gay marriage makes sense

1 Comment

I’ve never claimed to be — nor will I ever make such a claim to be — the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

At times I can be slow on the uptake. I occasionally lack intuition.

But the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage makes crystal clear sense to me. It’s about the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. That is it — as near as I can tell.

Thus, the hysteria being expressed by Texas Republican leaders — along with other GOP honchos across this great country — is boggling my mind.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/26/cruz-perry-react-gay-marriage-ruling/

Of all the things I’ve heard from the opponents of the ruling, the most hysterical response belongs — and this is zero surprise to many of us — Sen. Ted Cruz, one of a thundering herd of candidates running for the GOP nomination in 2016.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, the first candidate for the GOP nomination for president, said the gay marriage ruling puts religious liberty ‘front and center in the target of the federal government.’ He called it the ‘very definition of lawlessness. It is naked and unadulterated judicial activism.'”

Sheesh. Judicial activism? I wonder how he ranks the Citizens United ruling of 2010, which declared that corporations and rich fat cats could give unlimited amounts of campaign money, tilting the political playing field to the distinct advantage of those with the most money. Oh, but that’s another story.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says this, in part: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

You know what that means to me? It means that states cannot deny someone the ability to marry whomever they love. It means to me that the U.S. Constitution, the one that all politicians swear to “protect and defend” is the law of the land. It means that all citizens shall not be denied “equal protection of the laws.”

Can it be any clearer than that?

The Supreme Court upheld the U.S. Constitution in a tightly worded majority opinion. It said that states cannot bar people from marrying someone if that someone happens to be of the same gender.

Judicial activism?

If I can understand what the court said and meant, why can’t The Cruz Missile? He’s the one with the Harvard law degree.

legal news

Next up for Supremes? Gay marriage

Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, with two conservative justices joining the liberals to form a majority coalition, it is fair to speculate about the gay marriage ruling that’s coming up.

My trick knee is throbbing and it’s telling me the court is going to declare that gay couples can legally be married.

What’s more, if conservatives think they’re angry now at Chief Justice John Roberts’s ruling in favor of the ACA, wait to see the reaction if he decides that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applies to gay couples.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/18/cruz-courts-evangelical-voters/

Republicans, such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, say that religious liberty is under attack. Cruz, who’s running for the GOP presidential nomination, told the Faith and Freedom Coalition: “I would encourage everyone here to be lifting up in prayer the court that they not engage in an act of naked and lawless judicial activism, tearing down the marriage laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution.”

There he goes again, using that word “lawless.”

The case under consideration deals with whether a gay couple can be married legally in one state and have it recognized in another. Federal judges have overturned state bans on gay marriage, declaring that such bans violate the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. Gay people are citizens, too.

The court surprised a lot of Americans — including me — by upholding the ACA.

I’m sensing a less-surprising outcome on the gay marriage issue.

The reaction, though, could be ferocious.

legal news

Three cheers for appointed federal judges

supreme court

Take a good look at this picture. It shows the nine men and women who have upheld the Affordable Care Act’s federal subsidy provision.

The U.S. Supreme Court has protected health insurance for an estimated 6.5 million Americans.

But to hear the criticism from the right in this country, you would think these individuals have just destroyed the U.S. Constitution they took an oath to uphold and to interpret fairly and without bias.

Thank goodness for the constitutional provision that allows these individuals to hold lifetime jobs, free of the kind of political pressure that forces elected judges at times to tilt in favor of interests whose job is to put heat on politicians.

The 6-3 ruling crossed ideological lines. Two conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associated Justice Anthony Kennedy — ruled with the majority. The three dissenters — Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — held firm in their belief that the ACA violates the Constitution.

Six justices voted for the ACA; three of them voted against it.

Majority rule wins, yes?

Republican presidential candidates went ballistic. Mike Huckabee called the court majority “judicial tyrants.” Ted Cruz threw the “lawless” adjective out there — again.

The founders got it right when they made the federal judiciary an unelected branch of government. They intended for federal judges to be free of the pressure that can overwhelm elected politicians. Presidents feel it. Legislators feel it. They are elected to represent us all. We might not like all the decisions they make, but we have recourse: we can vote them out when the next election rolls around.

Not so with federal judges. They are appointed to lifetime jobs. Yes, they are appointed by politicians with particular biases and philosophies. The judges then are subjected to sometimes grueling hearings before the Senate, which has the authority to approve or reject their appointments.

Once they take their seat on the bench, though, all bets are off.

Occasionally, these appointees evolve into judges that their benefactors — the presidents who appoint them — might not like.

That’s part of the process the founders established.

And the irony of all the outrage being expressed by those who oppose the Supremes’ support of the ACA is that many of those on the right proclaim themselves to be “strict constructionists” of the Constitution. The way I read the Constitution, it states with crystal clarity that federal judges serve for as long as they want — or are able — to do the job.

 

national news

Yes, Mitt … remove the rebel flag

Mitt Romney has added his important voice to the cries of those who want South Carolina to take the Confederate flag down from its statehouse grounds.

Not all the leading politicians in this country have taken up the cause. This should be a no-brainer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/20/mitt-romney-confederate-flag_n_7627776.html

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee said once again that the flag symbolizes hate. Indeed, that symbol has overshadowed the “Southern pride” heritage that many still proclaim.

As Romney spoke out in the wake of that terrible Charleston, S.C., church massacre, other pols continue to hold their tongue.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican and presidential candidate, said the decision must rest ultimately with South Carolinians. Sure thing, senator, but South Carolina doesn’t operate in a vacuum. It is one of 50 united states, yes? Thus, it is totally fair for all Americans to express outrage that the state hasn’t taken down a flag that symbolizes — in the eyes of millions of us — the kind of hatred that produced the carnage in the Charleston Bible study classroom.

Another GOP presidential candidate, South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, calls the flag “part of who we are” as Southerners. Oh, please. Hasn’t he seen that flag waving at Klan rallies where participants say those things about their fellow Americans who happen to be of different races?

I’m with Gov. Romney on this one.

Take down the rebel flag.

national news, political news

Nixon could have squashed scandal … easily

2 Comments

Forty-three years ago today, President Nixon missed an opportunity to squash what had been termed a “third-rate burglary.” All he had to do was deliver a brief speech on national television that went something like this:

My fellow Americans. Good evening.

By now you’ve heard about the break-in at the Watergate office complex and hotel in Washington, D.C. Several burglars were apprehended by the D.C. police and arrested and charged with breaking and entering. 

You also have heard that the men apparently were working at the behest of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. They broke into the Democratic National Committee offices and allegedly rifled through some files, looking for papers relevant to the Democrats’ campaign they intend to launch against me this fall.

I called DNC Chairman Larry O’Brien and expressed my deepest regret for this intrusion into the Democratic Party’s office.

It doesn’t stop there. Today, I fired the head of the Committee to Re-Elect the President and his senior staff. I informed all of them that this kind of chicanery will not be tolerated by me, my closest advisers, and anyone associated with my re-election campaign.

Accordingly, I have instructed the attorney general, the director of the FBI and have asked local police to do all they can to get to the bottom of this caper and to ensure that anyone caught is brought to justice as quickly as possible.

I want to apologize as well to the American people for this shameful criminal act.

Thank you and good night.

That event didn’t happen on June 17, 1972. What did happen is that President Nixon launched the Mother of All Cover-Ups. He instructed the FBI to stonewall the investigation into what happened. He told his senior White House staff to do all it could to block any and all inquiries.

He abused the office to which he had been elected and was about to be re-elected later that year in historic fashion.

Contemporary politicians today keep yapping about the “lawlessness” of the current administration. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is among those who toss around the “lawless” label a bit too carelessly.

Back when young Teddy was in diapers, the Nixon administration set the standard for lawlessness that hasn’t been met since. If he wants to see how an administration can flout federal law, he need look no further than what the Nixon administration did in the name of the man at the top.

So … there you have it.

The Watergate break-in occurred 43 years ago. It could have been put aside and relegated to the kind of story it was in the beginning: a minor cop story covered by the Metro desk of the Washington Post. Then two young reporters — Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward — began smelling a rat.

They found it — in the Oval Office.

 

 

national news, political news

Trump: grand marshal of the clown parade

1 Comment

Donald Trump decided during his 45-minute presidential campaign announcement speech to trash as many groups of people and individuals as he could.

Well done, Donald.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-mexicans-comment-119100.html?hp=rc4_4

I’ll admit that I didn’t have the stomach to sit through the entire speech, but my favorite part occurred when he dissed Mexicans.

Immigrants are coming into the country to rape, murder and steal from Americans. He said that “I’m sure good people” are coming as well, adding the “good people” reference almost as an afterthought.

He thinks conservative columnist/TV pundit Charles Krauthammer is “overrated.” He trashed all his Republican rivals as being half-hearted and afraid to speak the truth.

As this campaign unfolds, though, I’m waiting anxiously for the Birther in Chief — Trump — to raise the issue of Sen. Ted Cruz’s legitimacy as a candidate, just as continues to do with the current president, Barack Obama.

Cruz was born in Canada; his father is Cuban, his mother is American. Thus, he’s an American citizen by birth — just like President Obama, except that the president was born in one of the 50 United States of America.

Will The Donald suggest that Ted Cruz is not qualified to run for, let alone serve as president?

Gosh, I hope he does — and then reveals why he deserves to be in the lead car in the Parade of Clowns.

national news, political news, State news

Rick Perry: Governors make better presidents

1 Comment

Rick Perry actually makes sense when he extols the virtues of governors seeking the presidency of the United States.

That doesn’t mean in the least that I intend — at this moment — to vote for him if lightning strikes and the Republican Party nominates him in 2016. I’m going to keep an open mind, though, as the campaign progresses. Honest. I will.

But in his campaign rollout speech in that sweltering hangar in Addison, Perry said that governors are those with actual executive experience.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/05/perry-stakes-defining-contrast-on-executive-experi/

He ought to know. Perry served as Texas governor for 14 years — even though it seemed much longer, at least in my eyes. He made a lot of executive decisions during his time as governor. Some of them were good decisions, even though I need some time to think of them.

He goofed on a few as well, such as the one he made requiring junior high school girls to be vaccinated for sexually transmitted diseases. The Legislature overrode that order in 2011, which of course is an action that Perry never mentions while campaigning for president.

Back to the point.

Perry’s assertion that governors make better presidents seems to have some merit. He said, according to the Texas Tribune: “The question of every candidate will be this one: When have you led?” Perry added, posing the same query that is a regular part of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz‘s 2016 stump speech. “Leadership is not a speech on the Senate floor. It’s not what you say; it’s what you do. And we will not find the kind of leadership needed to revitalize the country by looking to the political class in Washington.”

My only question, though, is this: Does he include former Govs. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton among those who did well as president?

I’ll answer my own query: Probably not.