Tag Archives: Senator Ted Cruz

Changing Things On His Way Out The Door

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Hill posted an article about a recent decision by the Biden administration regarding Cuba.

The article reports:

The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it will remove Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) in exchange for the release of political prisoners jailed for protesting against the regime in July 2021.

The Trump administration placed the SST designation on Cuba in the last week of the president-elect’s first term, and Biden officials said they are in contact with the Trump transition team over their action. 

“This issue is among the issues on which they’ve been in communication,” a senior administration official said in a call with reporters.  

The administration, required by law, is notifying Congress of the decision, allowing lawmakers to review it, although there’s little they can do to block the lifting of the designation. 

Cuban officials had fought tooth and nail for removal from the SST list throughout President Biden’s term, but had generally not received much buy-in from administration officials.

On Tuesday, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement lauding the changes, but noting that the economic “blockade” of the island — referred to as an “embargo” stateside — “remains in force.”

It is nice that the political prisoners are getting released, but is Cuba going to take more political prisoners in order to have the economic blockade lifted? Why is the Biden administration (I truly doubt President Biden totally understands a lot of what the administration is doing at this point) doing this on their way out the door? Is there any way we can stop damaging decisions by a lame-duck President, because we are seeing a lot of them?

The article concludes:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Trump’s pick for secretary of State, introduced legislation in February 2023 that would prevent Cuba’s removal from the SST list until democratic elections are held in the country, a transition government is in power and all political prisoners are released.

Rubio will sit for a confirmation hearing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday where he is likely to face questions from his colleagues over whether the Trump administration will maintain Biden’s actions or reverse them.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in a Tuesday statement that he would work to reverse Biden’s decision.

“Today’s decision is unacceptable on its merits. The terrorism advanced by the Cuban regime has not ceased. I will work with President Trump and my colleagues to immediately reverse and limit the damage from the decision,” Cruz said.

Who Do These People Represent?

Posted on by

America is a representative republic. We elect people and send them to Washington to represent us and the best interests of America. Lately it seems as if some of our representatives have forgotten who they work for.

On Thursday, The Daily Caller reported that after Senator Ted Cruz introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which would ban the federal government from selling strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) oil to America’s adversaries. Fourteen Democrat Senators voted against this amendment.

The article reports:

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas authored the amendment, which would bar Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm from drawing down oil from the SPR to sell to any entity that is under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, Russia, North Korea or Iran. Democrats who voted against the amendment include Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Corey Booker of New Jersey, Benjamin Cardin of Maryland and Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The amendment passed the Senate by an 85-14 vote, indicating wide bipartisan support for the restrictions on SPR supply making its way into the hands of nations adversarial to the U.S. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joined Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa as cosponsors for the amendment.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Peter Welch of Vermont also voted against the amendment.

Draining down the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) to lower the cost of gasoline at the pump for political reasons is questionable at best, but to then sell some of that oil to people who want to destroy us is totally insane. Who do these people represent?

Forced To Face The Music

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The New York Post posted an article about the appearance of Attorney General Merrick Garland before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. A number of Republican Senators used the appearance to point out how unevenly Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is enforcing various laws.

The article reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) excoriated the attorney general’s extraordinary inaction over the past 10 months as pro-abortion protesters have harassed Supreme Court justices at their homes in the wake of the leaked Dobbs decision, despite a federal law that bans “picketing or parading” near a judge’s residence.

“When rioters descended on the homes of six Supreme Court justices, night after night after night, you did nothing,” raged Cruz.

“The department did nothing when extremist groups, like Ruth Sent Us and Jane’s Revenge, openly organized campaigns of harassment at the homes of justices …

“When the same groups posted online information about where the justices worship, or their home addresses, or where their kids went to school, you again sat on your hands and did nothing. 

Next Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) pointed out the following:

Next, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) grilled Garland about the disparate treatment of Christian pro-life activists arrested outside abortion clinics compared to pro-abortion activists who have gone unpunished after firebombing pregnancy centers.

He cited the case of Mark Houck, the Catholic father of seven acquitted in January of federal assault charges over an altercation outside a Philadelphia abortion clinic.

Houck was arrested at gunpoint in front of his terrified family in an FBI raid.

“This is a case where a Catholic pro-life demonstrator, a father, was accused of disorderly conduct in front of an abortion center,” Hawley said.

“The Philadelphia DA, who is a Democrat, very progressive, declined to prosecute. There was a private suit that got dismissed. Then after all that, your Justice Department sent between 20 and 30 agents in the early-morning hours to the Houck residence to arrest this guy after he had offered to turn himself in voluntarily.”

Garland said the FBI “dis­agreed” with that description of the raid.

So Hawley got out an easel and displayed a blown-up photo of fearsome-looking FBI agents with long guns, ballistic shields and bulletproof vests.

There is no excuse for this sort of behavior by the Justice Department. If we do not elect people who will uphold the law and who will appoint people who will uphold the law, we will descend into tyranny.

Allowing Ordinary Citizens To Run For Office

Posted on by

On Monday, The Patriot Journal posted an article about a recent Supreme Court decision that will make it easier for the average American to run for political office.

The article reports:

All of America is waiting for the Supreme Court to release a number of ground-breaking rulings. Last week, the court revealed it was set to release “one or more” rulings today.

It seems they are holding off that one ruling and addressing other important cases. One of them came from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who was challenging a campaign finance law.

Cruz claimed the law was wrongfully punishing him. And the court, in a 6-3 ruling, backed the senator.

The ruling involved how much money a candidate could raise to pay off their personal debts after an election. In other words, if a candidate funded his own campaign, he could only pay himself back $250,000. Like it or not, in today’s elections, that is chump change. The Supreme Court agreed with Senator Cruz that the cap on how much a candidate could pay himself back was a limitation on free speech. The ruling was 6-3. The Supreme Court’s three liberal judges voted against removing the limit. A vote against removing the limit is a vote to keep the incumbents in power in Washington by making it more difficult for political outsiders to run for office.

The article concludes:

Although this might not seem relevant to us peons who don’t have nearly $250,000 to our names, this benefits anyone who wants to run for public office.

This ruling means someone can donate their own money to their campaign, without fear that they’ll go bankrupt. Because, after an election, they can use campaign funds to pay themselves back.

This ruling can help folks who want to run for public office but had previously avoided out of concerns for their livelihood.

Is A Refusal To Answer An Answer?

Posted on by

There are many Americans who believe that a lot of what we saw on January 6th was a false flag operation. The fact that no one can explain why President Trump’s request for the National Guard was denied adds to that suspicion. The fact that Roy Epps mysteriously disappeared from the FBI’s Most Wanted List after being seen on video telling people to go into the Capitol also adds to that suspicion. A Congressional Hearing on Tuesday added further fuel to the suspicion that January 6th was a set-up.

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article on Tuesday about the Congressional Hearing. The article reports:

An FBI agent refused to give answers on Tuesday as to who Ray Epps is and whether any agents or informants participated in any capacity in the January 6 Capitol riot.

Senator Ted Cruz demanded to know the level of involvement, if any, the agency had in the deadly attack last year and wanted to know more about an ex-Marine accused of being an FBI plant sent to help incite the events last year.

‘How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th?’ Cruz asked the FBI’s Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch Jill Sanborn during a hearing on domestic violence threats on Tuesday.

‘Sir, I’m sure you can appreciate that I can’t go into the specifics of sources and methods –’ Sanborn began, but was cut off but Cruz re-asking the same question.

‘I can’t answer that,’ said Sanborn, who joined the hearing virtually.

‘Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on January 6?’ Cruz pushed.

‘I can’t answer that.’

‘Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on January 6?’ the Texas Republican senator asked.

Sanborn repeated the same answer for a third time.

Cruz then said that President Biden needs to answer questions about the FBI’s supposed role in January 6.

‘Unfortunately, under Joe Biden we have seen an incredibly partisan Department of Justice,’ Cruz said. ‘And both the Department of Justice and the FBI have an arrogance that they are not accountable to anyone, that they can stonewall.’

So much for the transparency of the Biden administration.

A Reasonable Plan

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that Senator Ted Cruz has filed legislation on Tuesday that would establish processing centers for illegal immigrants in areas such as Martha’s Vineyard and other Democrat-led communities. Now realistically we understand that this will never be passed, but the bill makes a statement about life in America for ordinary people and life in America for politicians and the wealthy. People who own ranches in Texas have had their property destroyed, littered, and overrun on a regular basis during the Biden administration. People in places like Martha’s Vineyard, Greenwich, Connecticut, and other places where our politicians and wealthy live have not been touched by the crisis at our southern border.

The article reports:

Cruz stated that the Texas government was forced to proclaim a state of disaster and dedicate its law enforcement and financial resources to dealing with the problem. “Local Border Patrol Sectors in Texas continue to be overwhelmed by the volume of illegal aliens at the border. The Texas government has been forced to declare a state of disaster and provide its law enforcement and fiscal resources to address the crisis.”

Cruz reported that he encountered human traffickers and cartel members while traveling to the border in early March. One of his recordings showed him saying, “That’s Mexico and you can see there are three smugglers right there standing on the Mexican side looking at us.”

The proposed bill makes the point that what is happening at our southern border is a national problem–it has consequences. There is no way that those making our laws should be exempt from those consequences.

It Might Have Been Wise To Consider Cultural Differences Before Bringing Thousands Of Unvetted Refugees Into America

Posted on by

Yesterday BizPac Review posted an article about one of the situations America is encountering in bringing into our country the thousands of refugees from Afghanistan. There are significant cultural differences between America’s culture and that of Afghanistan. For instance, pedophilia is very common in Afghanistan and rarely addressed. Child marriage is also very common and considered acceptable. We are bringing in people who routinely engage in both of these practices.

The article reports:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is demanding answers over a bombshell report that sex traffickers and their victims may have been among the 120,000 people evacuated from Afghanistan.

The problem is that the administration doesn’t really seem to know who was evacuated. All that’s known for certain is that few of the Afghan allies who’d worked alongside America’s veterans and thus earned the privilege of being evacuated actually got out.

“[A] small percentage of the Afghan citizens who got out are the ones the U.S. pledged to place at the top of its priority list: the thousands who had worked for the U.S. and its allies as well as employees of nongovernmental groups and media organizations,” Bloomberg reported Friday.

“In fact, many of the Afghans who were most vulnerable to the Taliban — applicants for the Special Immigrant Visa program intended for translators and others who aided the American war effort — didn’t make it out because the U.S. told them going to the airport would be too dangerous. And they never got a call to come before the last U.S. plane departed to meet President Joe Biden’s Aug. 31 departure deadline,” the outlet added.

And so who did make it out of the Middle Eastern nation? According to the Associated Press, some of the evacuees may have been elderly sex traffickers.

…“There have been multiple cases of child brides and polygamous families from Afghanistan arriving at military bases here in America as part of their botched evacuation,” he (Texas Senator Ted Cruz) said.

“Reports even suggest that some of the exploitation was a direct result of the Biden administration’s chaotic evacuation process, a process that has enabled and incentivized coercion and abuse to the point where Biden Administration officials may well be complicit in child trafficking,” the senator added.

The article concludes:

Concerns about the government’s screening measures have once again become an issue because of the Biden administration’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal and the subsequent rushed evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people.

And just like in times past, the left has begun to reflexively accuse anyone who broaches screening standards of being a racist.

It is truly unfortunate that the withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled so badly. An orderly withdrawal would have saved those who helped us and prevented what is currently happening. Now we need to take the time to sort out who we evacuated and do what we can to prevent pedophilia and child trafficking from becoming even more prevalent in America than they already are.

Why Were They Trying To Pass This In The Dead Of Night?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about a vote in the Senate Wednesday night.

The article reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) blocked an attempt by Senate Democrats to push through a federal election overhaul bill early Wednesday morning.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) brought the For The People Act, a bill critics say amounts to a federal takeover of elections, to the floor around 3:30 a.m. after the Senate had concluded 15 hours of amendment votes on a $3.5 trillion budget resolution. In the dead of night, Schumer sought to pass the federal overhaul of elections by unanimous consent, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Only one objection by a senator was required to stop the process. In a roughly 15-minute back-and-forth, Cruz tanked Schumer’s attempt to force the election bill through the Senate. Cruz blasted the bill in remarks on the Senate floor:

This bill would constitute a federal government takeover of elections. It would constitute a massive power grab by Democrats. It would disenfranchise millions of Americans and it would do precisely the opposite of its nominal title, ‘For The People.’ It is, instead, for the politicians because it entrenches politicians and ensures that the people cannot vote them out of office. It would strike down virtually every reasonable voter integrity law in the country, including voter I.D. laws supported by the overwhelming majority of this country, including prohibitions on ballot harvesting, again widely supported by people in this country. It would mandate that felons be allowed to vote, and it would automatically register millions of illegal aliens to vote. It would profoundly undermine democracy in this country, and for that reason I object.

The article notes:

Schumer’s failure to force the For The People Act through the Senate so far amounts to a failure for Texas Democrats who spent weeks pushing for the legislation, as well. On returning to Texas this week, state Rep. James Talarico touted his work in D.C. and said he is “confident” that the Texas Democrats’ lobbying would force Congress to pass the federal election bill.

“I’m home! Our quorum break shined a national spotlight on the TX voter suppression bill and pushed Congress closer to passing a federal voting rights act to override it. I’m confident they will,” Talarico said on Twitter.

Just for the record, our Founding Fathers purposely put election law in the hands of the individual states. The federalization of our elections is unconstitutional. Unfortunately the Democrats seem to have no problem shredding the Constitution. When President Biden extended the eviction moratorium, he admitted that it was probably unconstitutional for him to do that, but he figured it would take a while for the courts to sort that out. If the Democrats can pass the For The People Act, the damage may be done before anyone rules that it is unconstitutional. There is a reason it was brought up at 3:30 in the morning–the Democrats thought they could sneak it through before anyone noticed.

It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. What happened Wednesday night is an example of that. Thank God for Ted Cruz.

 

Who Decided The Polices Involved?

Posted on by

Yesterday Trending Politics posted an article about freshmen Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who is leading Republican efforts to find out why those involved in the events of January 6th are being treated so differently than those members of Antifa and Black Lives matter who were involved in the riots last summer.

The article reports:

A group of Republican lawmakers led by freshmen Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado are demanding that the Biden administration explain the alleged unequal treatment of Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, many of whom have never spent a night in jail, and those who have been incarcerated for months following the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

In a letter, Boebert and 10 other House Republicans asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to address “the apparent inconsistent application of the law with respect to rioters across the country,” according to the Washington Times.

“The foundation of our criminal justice system requires that all defendants are treated equally before the law, but the Biden regime is not living up to this solemn obligation,” said Boebert, in a statement.

The lawmakers say that prosecutors in Oregon have signed off on at least 12 “deferred resolution agreements in federal felony cases” resulting from clashes during last year’s protests in Portland, while some rioters from Jan. 6 are being held in solitary confinement.

“Reports are circulating that the Biden regime has held January 6th rioters in solitary confinement, while at the same time, they are letting BLM rioters that attacked federal buildings off with just a few hours of community service,” Boebert said.

The article concludes with a quote from a letter written by four Senate Republicans led by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in June:

“DOJ’s apparent unwillingness to punish individuals who committed crimes during the spring and summer 2020 protests stands in stark contrast to the treatment of the individuals charged in connection with the breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.,” said Tuesday’s letter from Boebert and the 10 other House members.

“Whether it is a mob breaking laws in D.C. or a mob in Portland or Minneapolis, the standard of justice should be the same in America,” they added.

The treatment of the people who entered the Capitol Building on January 6th is much more representative of a country ruled by a dictatorship than a free democratic republic.

Changing The Rules One Rule At A Time

Posted on by

Yesterday American Greatness reported that the Senate Ethics Committee will be investigating Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) because  of their objections to the electoral results of the 2020 election.

The article reports:

The two Republican senators were the most vocal advocates for challenging the results of the electoral college, after widespread evidence and allegations of voter fraud in key swing states that may have swung the election away from President Donald Trump and in favor of Joe Biden. The investigation comes after seven Democrats in the Senate filed complaints against Hawley and Cruz; chief among them was Chris Coons (D-Del.), who is the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, who called for both senators to resign.

The ranking Republican on the committee is James Lankford (R-Okla.), who said that no statements or leaks will be made regarding the investigation until it is concluded, saying “we don’t bring up anything on the ethics stuff at all. We don’t confirm anything and we’re pretty lockstop about that.”

A spokesperson for Cruz’s office condemned the investigation, declaring that “it sets a dangerous precedent when ethics complaints are used as a political tool to try to intimidate and punish.”

The last time the Senate Ethics Committee conducted an investigation of any kind was in 2017, against then-Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), who was credibly accused of sexual misconduct in the past and ultimately resigned from the Senate. The committee previously failed to take any action against Senator Bob Menendez (R-N.J.), despite overwhelming evidence of corruption and bribery between Menendez and one of his top donors.

I have previously pointed out that Democrats have historically raised objections to electoral college votes when Republicans were elected. Somehow that did not result in an ethics investigation.

In case you have forgotten, I have previously posted on the subject:

On December 31, 2020, Fox News reminded us:

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

That forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio’s electoral votes. Neither did. But the objection by Boxer and Tubbs serves as a modern precedent for what is likely to happen in Congress on Jan. 6.

Notably, some Democrats lauded Boxer’s move at the time, including Durbin himself.

This is not a direction we should be heading. Our government in Washington is looking more like tyranny every day.

A Moderate That May Not Be So Moderate

Posted on by

Townhall posted an article today about West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. Senator Manchin is currently seen as a possible brake on some of the more radical policies being discussed by the Biden regime. A recent remark during an interview might cast a shadow on that idea.

The article reports:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has become the moderate Democrat with much more sense than his colleagues. He repeatedly said he thought impeaching President Donald Trump, for a second time, was “ill-advised,” especially since there are not 19 Republicans in the Senate that would move to convict. But now the West Virginia senator has a suggestion: using the 14th Amendment to remove Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) from office.

“Let me read you what the 14th Amendment, Section 3 says. ‘No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.’ Would you support, senator, the removal of Sen. Hawley and Sen. Cruz, through the 14th Amendment Section 3?” PBS News’ Margaret Hoover asked. 

‘Well, they should look – absolutely. I mean, basically, that should be a consideration. And he should you know, he understands that, Ted’s a very bright individual and I get along fine with Ted. But what he did was totally outside of the realm of our responsibilities,” Manchin explained. “Listen to the conversations that people have had, listen to some of the congress people that are still speaking, you know? Listen, around the country, people in different law, in elected positions, these people should be held accountable, because it’s sedition.”

Manchin went on to explain that the United States was formed because our Founding Fathers were tired of living under the tyrannical rule of King George. They believed in a republic so much that they “gave up everything” in pursuit of this new adventure. In his eyes, Cruz and Hawley’s objections to certifying the election results went against the Founding Fathers’ intentions and beliefs.

First of all, how did Senators Hawley and Cruz engage in insurrection? Was it because they contested the 2020 presidential election?

Might I remind you (from Fox News December 31, 2020)

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

That forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio’s electoral votes. Neither did. But the objection by Boxer and Tubbs serves as a modern precedent for what is likely to happen in Congress on Jan. 6.

Notably, some Democrats lauded Boxer’s move at the time, including Durbin himself.

If Democrats want to bring Americans together and heal our divide, this is not the way to do it.

A Really Dumb Political Decision

Posted on by

Ted Cruz‘s speech last night was a mistake–his making a speech was not a mistake–what he said was a mistake.

On March 3, 2016, Real Clear Politics posted the following:

Echoing the iconic moment from the first debate of the cycle, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Donald Trump all agree to definitely support the Republican nominee, no matter who it is, at Thursday’s GOP presidential debate on the Fox News Channel.

RUBIO: I’ll support the Republican nominee.

…BAIER: Senator Cruz, yes or no, you will support Donald Trump is he’s the nominee?

CRUZ: Yes, because I gave my word that I would. And what I have endeavored to do every day in the Senate is do what I said I would do. You know, just on Tuesday, we saw an overwhelming victory in the state of Texas where I won Texas by 17 percent.

…BAIER: Governor Kasich, yes or no, would you support Donald Trump as the Republican nominee?

KASICH: Yeah. But — and I kind of think that, before it’s all said and done, I’ll be the nominee.

…WALLACE: Yes, you will support the nominee of the party? TRUMP: Yes, I will. Yes. I will.

There were a few moments during the campaign when it looked as if Donald Trump was going to disavow that pledge, but generally speaking, he stayed with it. Governor Kasich and Senator Cruz simply chose not to keep their pledge. Governor Bush was also conspicuous in his absence from the Republican Convention.

I believe Donald Trump is the only logical choice for President right now. I believe he will support the U.S. Constitution, and he obviously loves America. I was truly disappointed in Ted Cruz’s speech last night. I believe Senator Cruz is a good man who simply made a bad decision in making that speech. As for the other Republicans who are behaving like two-year olds, they need to get over themselves and help elect Donald Trump. The irony here is that there is a strong possibility that Donald Trump will not run for a second term if he is elected. The behavior of some Republican leaders now will determine if the American people are willing to vote for them in the 2020 primary elections.

The End Of Free Speech On The Internet

Posted on by

Investor’s Business Daily reported yesterday on the plan to hand control of the internet over to the United Nations. That’s the same United Nations that includes a voting bloc of fifty-seven Muslim nations (Organization of Islamic Cooperation-OIC) that has been attempting to alter the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make it a crime to criticize Islam. Can you imagine what speech laws the United Nations could come up with if they had control of the internet?

The article reports:

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Commerce Department, has given its stamp of approval to transfer oversight to a little-known, but mighty, Los Angeles-based private nonprofit group called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN.

…The internet is one of the few places where, with some notable exceptions, free speech still reigns supreme. If some of the rest of that “multistakeholder community” doesn’t like that, what’s to keep it from exerting enormous pressure on ICANN to regulate away free exchange on the internet?

To keep this from happening, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (You wondered what he was up to since he stopped his campaign? Now you know.) and Wisconsin Sen. Sean Duffy have introduced a bill to halt transferring the internet domain name system away from the U.S. government unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.

There is also the matter of fees.

The article further reports:

Nor is this solely about freedom of speech. ICANN already charges fees to users. What happens when it’s free to raise fees with no oversight?

As Rick Manning of Americans For Limited Government noted recently, “nonprofit” ICANN had $219 million in revenue last year. When other countries gain clout, “it is guaranteed that they will seek to grab the pot of gold through a U.N. structure that would more directly benefit them and increase their power.”

Hopefully Ted Cruz’s bill will pass and keep the internet free from speech codes and increased fees.

Welcome To The Silly Season

Posted on by

Usually, the last three or four weeks before an election becomes the silly season. It is a time when you really can’t believe anything you read. There are more lies told in those three to four weeks than in the preceding six months and the following six months. Usually this occurs three to four weeks before a national election, but the current presidential campaign has not followed any of the rules that applied in the past, so I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that the silly season started months ago.

The current story that reflects the silly season is the National Inquirer story about Ted Cruz having had multiple affairs. Although that is something that Donald Trump seems to admit doing himself (and voters ignore it), evidently this is an important issue for Ted Cruz. Sometimes the double standard amazes me–remember when what Bill Clinton did in his spare time was off limits?

Hot Air posted some information on the supposed scandal that may shed some light on the truth (or lack thereof) of the charge.

The article reports:

For months and months, anti-Cruz operatives have pitched a variety of #CruzSexScandal stories to a host of prominent national publications, according to Republican operatives and media figures. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, Politico, and ABC News—reporters at all those outlets heard some version of the Cruz-is-cheating story. None of them decided to run with rumors. Those publications’ representatives all declined to provide on-the-record comments when The Daily Beast reached out for this article.

Breitbart News, the notoriously Trump-friendly conservative outlet, was also pitched the story of Cruz’s extramarital affairs, according to a source close to the publication. That source said an operative allied with Marco Rubio—but not associated with his official campaign—showed the publication a compilation video of Cruz and a woman other than his wife coming out of the Capitol Grille restaurant and a hotel on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But the outlet opted not to report on the video, which demonstrated no direct evidence of an affair.

“We got it from a Rubio ally,” said the source. “It was too thin, so [Breitbart’s Washington political editor Matt Boyle] decided not to run it. There was no way to verify the claims.”

I have no way of proving or disproving this story. Neither does Ted Cruz. That is the reason the opposition makes charges like this. One of the women named has come forward and said that the story is not true. Ted Cruz has, of course, denied it. Unfortunately, this story is simply a further example of how nasty this presidential campaign is. This campaign is anything but presidential. It is my hope that whoever is the actual source for this story, if they are currently holding public office, will be removed from that office in disgrace. This story, unproven, is simply not appropriate in any political campaign.

One Reason Washington Insiders Fear Ted Cruz

Posted on by

Senator Ted Cruz is not a Washington insider. Despite the fact that his career path has taken him to Washington, he is not part of the ‘in-crowd.’ He has shown numerous times that he has basic principles and that he is willing to take a stand on those principles whether anyone joins him or not. This sort of thinking is dangerous to the Washington establishment–of either party. That is one reason the attacks on him will increase as the primary elections continue.

Currently the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code is a tribute to the effectiveness of lobbyists. The tax code is used to encourage certain behavior and discourage other behavior. There are times when the tax code has been used to encourage marriage and families and times when it has been used to discourage marriage. Certain business with strong lobbyists have received tax breaks in the past. The tax code has been used to subsidize certain industries and behaviors. Crony capitalism has been a major force behind changes and writing of the tax code. It is time for that to end, and Ted Cruz has an interesting suggestion as to how to end it.

The following is taken from Ted Cruz’s webpage:

FlatTaxPlanWouldn’t it be nice to be able to pay your taxes on this simple form?

The website further reports:

PERSONAL INCOME TAX – SINGLE RATE: 10%

The Simple Flat Tax creates a simple, single-rate flat tax for individuals. The existing seven different rates of individual income tax will become one low rate: 10%.

  • A family of four will pay no taxes on their first $36,000 of income.
  • The plan exempts a large amount of initial income for low- and middle-income taxpayers, with a $10,000 standard deduction and $4,000 personal exemption. It also keeps the Child Tax Credit and expands and modernizes the Earned Income Tax Credit with greater anti-fraud and pro-marriage reforms.
  • The plan keeps the charitable giving deduction and features a home mortgage interest deduction, capped at principal value of $500,000.

BUSINESS FLAT TAX – SINGLE RATE: 16%

The corporate income tax along with the payroll tax are abolished, replaced by a 16% Business Flat Tax.

  • The current corporate tax code is riddled with years of accumulated loopholes and special favors, burdening U.S. businesses with the highest top tax rate among the advanced nations. This convoluted and anti-competitive structure will be replaced with a simple 16% tax on net business sales (gross sales minus expenses and capital expenditures).
  • The current payroll tax discourages work and job creation. The vast majority of Americans pay more in payroll tax than in income tax. The Simple Flat Tax will eliminate the payroll tax, boosting jobs and wages for working Americans, while guaranteeing funding for Social Security and Medicare.

UNIVERSAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (USA)

The Simple Flat Tax creates Universal Savings Accounts (USA) allowing savings of up to $25,000 per year in tax-deferred dollars.

Savers can withdraw the funds at any time for any reason – whether it be for college tuition, a down payment on a home, or their son or daughter’s wedding. This savings feature harmonizes with the tax elements of the Cruz Simple Flat Tax to move toward encouraging savings and investment – a recipe for economic growth and jobs.

There are other tax reform plans out there, but this plan looks possible and interesting. The plan also eliminates the death tax, the overseas profits tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the ObamaCare taxes.

I would just like to note that there is some serious double taxation in our current tax code–the death tax taxes money that taxes were paid on during the life of the person who died. Taxes paid on Social Security income are being paid on money that was already taxed when it was earned. The government needs to become considerable less greedy and allow Americans to keep more of the  money they earn.

 

 

It’s About Time

Posted on by

On Tuesday The Washington Free Beacon reported that lawmakers in Congress have filed legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. It’s about time.

Who is the Muslim Brotherhood?

Gamal al-Banna, the brother of Hassan al-Banna, the man who founded of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, was interviewed for a Norwegian television documentary, called “Freedom, Equality and the Muslim Brotherhood,”, He stated, “They (the Muslim Brotherhood) do not believe in freedom at all. There is no Islamic authority that respects freedom or democracy.”

Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are cut of the same cloth. The documents uncovered in the Holy Land Foundation Trial (if you follow the link, the first half is in Arabic, the second half is the English translation) explained clearly that the Muslim Brotherhood was (and is) in the process of implementing a plan to bring America under Sharia Law and create a world-side caliphate. The plan of the Brotherhood is to do this by infiltrating the American government and influencing policy. Al Qaeda has the same goal–they just want to do it by violent means rather than peaceful means.

Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood has successfully infiltrated the American government at all levels. In 2012 US Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley was condemned by the Joints Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and relieved of teaching duties at Joint Forces Staff College for teaching a course judged to be offensive to Islam. Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez commented on the state of things: “All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey’s Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive (or just too informative).”

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

“I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism,” said Robert Mueller, the former director of the FBI, during testimony in 2011.

Intelligence officials have established that elements of the Brotherhood run terrorist financing operations in the United States. Much of this information, however, remains classified.

Other officials have explained that terror groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda can all trace their roots back to the Muslim Brotherhood and its leaders.

Cruz has also led congressional efforts to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps an official state sponsor of terrorism.

That bill, submitted at the end of September, would likely mitigate the impact of sanctions relief provided to Iran under the recently inked nuclear deal.

“Branches of the [Revolutionary Guard Corps] have murdered hundreds of Americans,” Cruz said in a statement at the time. “They have attacked our allies, notably Israel. They have provided material support for other designated terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet for years the United States has sanctioned [Revolutionary Guard Corps] entities while leaving the organization itself untouched.”

It is about time we declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Bias? What Bias?

Posted on by

Brent Bozell posted an article at Townhall.com today contrasting the reporting on Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren during the Senate budget debate. The contrast is amazing.

The article reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Elizabeth Warren are polar opposites, a Tea Party conservative and an Occupy Wall Street socialist. Then there are the similarities: Both were elected in 2012, both have Harvard on their resume and both are mentioned as presidential material. But the media’s read of the two demonstrates an unquestionable slant.

Both senators have shaken up the Senate over heavy spending and regulation. When Warren does it, she’s promoted as a profile in courage, standing up for fairness. When Cruz does it, he’s a selfish brat causing meltdowns.

The article reminds us to look for this type of reporting as the 2016 Presidential campaign begins.

The article cites an example of bias in The Hill:

William Jacobson at the blog Legal Insurrection found another example in The Hill newspaper, reflecting the Capitol’s own tilt like a funhouse mirror. His examples were less than 24 hours apart. Warren drew the Dec. 12 headline “Warren makes her mark,” and on Dec. 13, the headline was “Cruz center of Senate meltdown.” The articles even had the same author, a hack named Alexander Bolton.

The article concludes:

All this provides a precise GPS location for our liberal media. To them, Ted Cruz is a dangerous extremist, but Warren is their heroine — compassionate, professorial and politically and economically correct. Anyone who expects objectivity from the press is badly out of touch.

Look for this pattern throughout the 2016 campaign.

Padding the National Defense Authorization Bill

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes some provisions that have nothing to do with defense.

The article reports:

According to Cruz (Senator Ted Cruz), the “extraneous” land grab provisions in the NDAA include:   

250,000 acres of new wilderness designations 400,000 acres withdrawn from productive use (for energy, mining, timber, etc.) 

Fifteen new national park units or park expansions 

Eight new studies for national parks 

Three new wild and scenic river designations

3 new studies for additional designations 

Study to begin the National Women’s History Museum 

The federal government already owns an estimated 640 million acres of land, more than one-third of the entire country.  

Breitbart News reported that the text of the NDAA compromise reached by a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both chambers included a slew of unrelated public lands measures. The NDAA is considered must-pass legislation.   

Again, we are left wondering who Congress actually represents–I don’t think it is the American people.

The article further reports:

The NDAA agreement includes close to 100 natural resources provisions from across the nation, including eight Nevada public land provisions that have been priorities for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his Republican counterpart Dean Heller.  

In a statement celebrating the attachment of the public lands provisions to the NDAA, Sen. Heller, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, acknowledges that he “worked behind the scenes for months to attach these Nevada priorities, spurring economic development and enhancing national security, to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).”  

“This is great news for the entire state of Nevada. I’ve worked tirelessly from my first days in the House of Representatives to take the lead and ensure these lands bills were top priorities. I’ve been committed from the very beginning and am glad to see the fruits of this labor,” he states. “I’m grateful my colleagues from the delegation, specifically Senator Reid and Congressman [Mark] Amodei [R-Nev.], collaborated in making these bills important action items this Congress.”  

“It was not an easy lift but the needs of Nevada were addressed, and I’m happy to achieve this goal,” he adds. “As this legislation becomes law, it will not only spur economic development in our state but enhance national security as well. Those are things we should all be proud to accomplish.”  

This NDAA is a bad bill–it cuts military benefits of active duty military and it includes a land grab that needs to be discussed on its own–not added to something unrelated. I understand that it would be inconvenient for the bill not to pass, but I hope there are enough people in the Senate who are paying attention and will say ‘no.’