The News with Sen. Cruz - October 10, 2014
As I traveled in Texas this week, I had the opportunity to visit Fort Hood, where soldiers are preparing to travel to Africa to combat the spread of Ebola, and to visit with medical leaders in the state.
I am proud of our soldiers and medical personnel working diligently to protect Americans from this deathly disease. Our priority should be just that, and I will keep working to make sure Texans remain safe and free.
All the best,
Ted Cruz
Sen. Cruz Discusses ISIS and Ebola on Fox
On Wednesday, Sen. Cruz spoke with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly regarding the unserious approach the Obama Administration has taken to combat ISIS and the action needed to prevent the spread of Ebola in the United States. See highlights below:
On the threat of ISIS:
“Unfortunately, what we have seen in six years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy has been a foreign policy that seems to focus on photo-ops and press releases, but not on concrete military objectives that are tied to our national security.
“Our objective here should be to take ISIS out, but instead this seems to be a campaign driven by political operatives and political mandates in the White House, rather than clear military objectives.”
On taking steps to prevent the spread of Ebola in the United States:
“The top concern of the US government should be protecting the American people. Today I visited Ft. Hood where hundreds of soldiers are preparing to deploy to West Africa and there’s a great deal of concern there among their families understandably.”
“The health professionals in Texas are preparing to deal with the potential of Ebola here but the first line of defense should be to prevent that terrible virus from coming here.”
Sen. Cruz Defends States' Marriage Laws
On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage. Sen. Cruz responded with the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.
“This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.
“The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.
“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.
“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.
“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.
“Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”
Sen. Cruz Publishes Op-Ed Calling on President Obama to Present a Clear Mission to Congress
Monday should have marked the end of the 60-day period designated by the War Powers Act that has thus far enabled President Obama to take military action against ISIS without congressional approval. In an op-ed published by National Review Online, Sen. Cruz highlights seven concerns with the President's current mission, and calls on him to present clear, defined military objectives before Congress for the mission to continue.
“We have the greatest armed forces on the planet, wonderful young men and women who have volunteered to fight for our freedom and who want to succeed. They are doing what they are asked with their well-known courage and expertise, but we must do all we can to ensure they are put in a position to win,” Sen. Cruz said.
See the seven concerns below. Read the full op-ed here.
1. It has no name — and just last week the Department of Defense tried to split the difference by declaring it part of the 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. While mission names are largely symbolic (“Urgent Fury,” “Overlord”) an officially named operation clarifies which global national-security efforts are the Defense Department’s main objectives. The military mission against Ebola in Africa, for example, is named “Operation United Assistance” — and in this case, the name should signal the destruction of ISIS. In addition, a named operation helps provide unity of effort for a multinational coalition and is important to military culture as the vehicle through which individual and unit combat achievements are recognized. By deliberately not naming this mission, the president is creating confusion and incoherence.
2. It has no authority. The 2001 and 2002 Bush-era Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) are, by the administration’s own logic, outdated. The president could argue that the 2001 AUMF gives him authority if he had for the last six years maintained that the long war on radical Islamic terrorist was an ongoing effort against a single enemy. But he hasn’t. He has repeatedly and emphatically insisted that he defeated the enemy that attacked us on September 11, 2001, and so by his own reasoning requires a new AUMF now.
3. It has few friends. The moderate rebels with whom we are supposedly partnering have publicly announced they are not interested in fighting ISIS. Rather, they are interested in fighting Bashar al-Assad — and troublingly enough, they think the airstrikes may benefit Assad. Before we made training and equipping so-called “moderate” rebels (which I opposed) into the cornerstone of our strategy, this should all have been well understood. In addition, the Iraqi army has proven woefully inept. After almost total collapse six months ago, most recently it has accidentally dropped food and ammunition to ISIS fighters, and there are reports that it is preparing to abandon Baghdad as ISIS closes in. There is little reason to believe that it has radically changed in the last six months.
4. The friends we do have in the region are problematic. The coalition appears to be designed for a photo-op of U.S.-Arab collaboration. Our “partners” seem to be doing little if anything, and the United States should be deeply suspicious of anything that includes Qatar, given that nation’s long and unsavory sponsorship of radical Islamic terrorism, including, according to some reports, ISIS itself. Meanwhile, we are not doing enough to help our natural allies in the region, the Kurds. They are fighting for their survival and should be one of the cornerstones of the president’s policy, yet the administration insists on funneling supplies through Baghdad and not helping the Kurds sell their oil, which would surely help them become more self-sufficient.
5. President Obama’s strategy may well be emboldening our enemies, notably Iran and Syria. Tehran is exploiting our mutual antipathy for ISIS to extort concessions in the negotiations over its nuclear program. As has so often been the case in the Obama-Clinton-Kerry Iran policy, they are getting it backwards. ISIS is a much more proximate threat to Iran than it is to us; we should be using this opportunity to pressure Iran into significant concessions, not the other way around. In addition, the mullahs’ vassal, Bashar al-Assad, the murderous dictator of Syria, may well wind up being the beneficiary of our action and use our strikes in Syria to consolidate his power.
6. The Obama administration can’t seem to figure out what is going on. The Pentagon admits it can’t get a clear line on what the strikes are achieving — if anything. We apparently almost bombed the very people we plan to train and equip. This gaping intelligence problem must be remedied immediately if this mission has any hopes of success.
7. It doesn’t appear to be working. The bottom line is that 60 days into this operation ISIS is still growing. They are adapting to our announced strategy, they know what we will and won’t do, and they are settling in to their claimed caliphate.
In Case You Missed It
LISTEN: Sen. Cruz with Bob Cole on KOKE FM
LISTEN: Sen. Cruz with Trey Ware on KTSA
Welcome to EditPad.org - your online plain text editor. Enter or paste your text here. To download and save it, click on the button below.
