Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 28, 2014, 11:50:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cruz 2016  (Read 7126 times)
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81871


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #200 on: November 28, 2013, 07:37:21 PM »

he is trolling

no, i'm really not.

tony, we both know christie isn't going to fix the budget.  we know hilary isn't going to fix the budget.

Cruz?  I think he's just crazy enough to do it Smiley 
Report to moderator   Logged

Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40826


View Profile
« Reply #201 on: December 09, 2013, 07:58:44 AM »

December 7, 2013
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee being vindicated on shutdown
Thomas Lifson

 
The GOP establishment is loath to admit it, but the government shutdown is turning out to be a brilliant political chess move on the part of Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. The Obamacare disaster, fully predictable by anyone who understands the effect of incentives and the fundamental incompetence of academic theorists and left wing ideologues, has made the go-for-broke attempt to stop it an obvious profile in courage.

Just take a look at this chart from the Huffington Post, via Charlie Cook:



Cook, a seasoned observer, sees the polling data moving against Democrats, and wonders, "Can Democrats Recover From the Obamacare Catastrophe?" But he fails to connect the dots, and dishes some typical establishmentarian snark at Cruz and Lee.

...in August, statements started coming from some of the more exotic Republicans in the House and Senate that perhaps it was a good idea to shut down the government over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Notwithstanding warnings from House and Senate Republican leaders and experienced (and wiser) members that such an effort would be a disaster for the party, the Republicans in the "kamikaze caucus" barreled ahead, over the cliff, shutting down the government.
 
 They were stupid, in Cook's eyes, because the polls turned against the GOP, as the media launched its predictable campaign blaming it for the ginned-up inconveniences (remember fencing off the WW II memorial?). What Cook doesn't (or refuses) to see is that the turning of polls against the Democrats post-healthcare.gov is not a random, chance occurrence, but rather predictable to anyone who looks two or three moves ahead on the chessboard.

The budget and debt limit fights lie ahead. Cruz and Lee have laid out the path for us. The GOP can now say that that because the Democrats have shown they are willing to shut down the government in order to preserve Obamacare, this time around there will be no shutdown. The previous efforts were futile, so we will not repeat our principled move. The federal government will continue to operate, and Obamacare will continue to damage the well-being of the American people. The Democrats have proven that they are so adamant about inflicting it upon us that they are willing to shut down the government.

A catastrophe is unfolding that is depriving responsible Americans of the health care insurance they prudently purchased, and leaving many unprotected next year, despite administration assurances that they are "enrolled" (even though their insurance companies don't know it and haven't been paid).

I am stunned that so many people, such as the brilliant Charles Krauthammer, fail to see how the predicate was being laid. Having proven themselves willing to shut down the government to protect Obamacare, the Democrats now own it. President Obama's promise that it will not be repealed "while I am president" makes his ego the problem, and Democrats who support him become equally culpable.

One person who does get it is William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection:

Cruz and Lee were trying to stop the disaster known as Obamacare. The legacy will be Democrats going to the mat to protect and preserve Obamacare. If Democrats owned Obamacare before, as a result of the efforts of Cruz, Lee and others, Democrats swallowed Obamacare whole in September.

Now everything has changed because Obamacare and Democrats are one and the same.

Bill and I are still lonely voices. But maybe others will wise up. Today's polling results are not the be-all and end-all of politics. Standing on principle gets noticed when the disaster being fought unfolds as predicted.

Of course, the polls could change by November 2014. But Obamacare is so deeply flawed that its ownership will hurt the Democrats and benefit the GOP.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/ted_cruz_and_mike_lee_being_vindicated_on_shutdown.html#ixzz2mzQp37y3
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40826


View Profile
« Reply #202 on: December 30, 2013, 10:40:58 AM »

Getting ready to run. 

Ted Cruz says he’s hired lawyers to renounce Canadian citizenship

Sen. Ted Cruz at the 2013 Values Voter Summit on Oct. 11, held by the Family Research Council. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
By TODD J. GILLMAN Washington Bureau tgillman@dallasnews.com
Published: 28 December 2013 09:42 PM
Updated: 29 December 2013 10:41 AM

WASHINGTON — The junior senator from Texas is still a Canadian. But he’s working on it, eh?

Born in Alberta 43 years ago last Sunday, Sen. Ted Cruz was unaware of his dual nationality until The Dallas Morning News explored the issue in August.

Since then, he said in a recent interview, “I have retained counsel that is preparing the paperwork to renounce the citizenship.”

He expects to complete the process in 2014. That time frame jibes with predictions from Canadian legal experts.

He doesn’t dispute holding dual citizenship. “Not at this point,” he said.

When Cruz was born, his parents were living in the Canadian oil patch in Calgary. His mother is a native-born American. His father, a Cuban émigré who later became a naturalized American, was still a Cuban citizen.

Under U.S. law, a child born with even one American parent is automatically entitled to citizenship, even if the birth takes place outside the country. Canada, like the United States, also confers automatic citizenship to anyone born on its soil, regardless of the parents’ nationalities.

That revelation by The News startled Cruz and his parents.

His mother, he said, had understood that it would have taken an affirmative act to claim Canadian citizenship, and that’s what she’d told him as a child.

“There was no reason to retain counsel to analyze Canadian law, because it wasn’t relevant to anything I was doing,” he said.

The topic came up last month when he met with real estate mogul Donald Trump, Cruz said, though “not in any significant respect.” He declined to elaborate.

Trump was among the most vocal “birthers” to question Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, refusing to accept as genuine his Hawaiian birth certificate.

But the strong legal consensus is that with even one American parent — a circumstance shared by Obama and Cruz — a child born anywhere qualifies as a “natural born American,” entitled to citizenship at birth and therefore eligible to serve as president.

The senator shrugged off any political implications.

“My political perspective is focused on representing the state of Texas,” he said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20131228-ted-cruz-says-hes-hired-lawyers-to-renounce-canadian-citizenship.ece
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10840


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #203 on: December 30, 2013, 10:59:54 AM »

the repubs run another man with no chance of winning, smart  Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81871


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #204 on: December 30, 2013, 11:20:10 AM »

Getting ready to run. 

Ted Cruz says he’s hired lawyers to renounce Canadian citizenship

LOL... I can just hear Perry and the other repubs coming at him... "Maybe we can ask Cruz what they think of this issue, up in canada..."
Report to moderator   Logged

blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10840


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #205 on: December 30, 2013, 11:27:55 AM »

Carnival Cruz  Grin they never learn  Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24839


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #206 on: December 30, 2013, 01:03:31 PM »

December 7, 2013
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee being vindicated on shutdown
Thomas Lifson

 
The GOP establishment is loath to admit it, but the government shutdown is turning out to be a brilliant political chess move on the part of Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. The Obamacare disaster, fully predictable by anyone who understands the effect of incentives and the fundamental incompetence of academic theorists and left wing ideologues, has made the go-for-broke attempt to stop it an obvious profile in courage.

Just take a look at this chart from the Huffington Post, via Charlie Cook:



Cook, a seasoned observer, sees the polling data moving against Democrats, and wonders, "Can Democrats Recover From the Obamacare Catastrophe?" But he fails to connect the dots, and dishes some typical establishmentarian snark at Cruz and Lee.

...in August, statements started coming from some of the more exotic Republicans in the House and Senate that perhaps it was a good idea to shut down the government over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Notwithstanding warnings from House and Senate Republican leaders and experienced (and wiser) members that such an effort would be a disaster for the party, the Republicans in the "kamikaze caucus" barreled ahead, over the cliff, shutting down the government.
 
 They were stupid, in Cook's eyes, because the polls turned against the GOP, as the media launched its predictable campaign blaming it for the ginned-up inconveniences (remember fencing off the WW II memorial?). What Cook doesn't (or refuses) to see is that the turning of polls against the Democrats post-healthcare.gov is not a random, chance occurrence, but rather predictable to anyone who looks two or three moves ahead on the chessboard.

The budget and debt limit fights lie ahead. Cruz and Lee have laid out the path for us. The GOP can now say that that because the Democrats have shown they are willing to shut down the government in order to preserve Obamacare, this time around there will be no shutdown. The previous efforts were futile, so we will not repeat our principled move. The federal government will continue to operate, and Obamacare will continue to damage the well-being of the American people. The Democrats have proven that they are so adamant about inflicting it upon us that they are willing to shut down the government.

A catastrophe is unfolding that is depriving responsible Americans of the health care insurance they prudently purchased, and leaving many unprotected next year, despite administration assurances that they are "enrolled" (even though their insurance companies don't know it and haven't been paid).

I am stunned that so many people, such as the brilliant Charles Krauthammer, fail to see how the predicate was being laid. Having proven themselves willing to shut down the government to protect Obamacare, the Democrats now own it. President Obama's promise that it will not be repealed "while I am president" makes his ego the problem, and Democrats who support him become equally culpable.

One person who does get it is William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection:

Cruz and Lee were trying to stop the disaster known as Obamacare. The legacy will be Democrats going to the mat to protect and preserve Obamacare. If Democrats owned Obamacare before, as a result of the efforts of Cruz, Lee and others, Democrats swallowed Obamacare whole in September.

Now everything has changed because Obamacare and Democrats are one and the same.

Bill and I are still lonely voices. But maybe others will wise up. Today's polling results are not the be-all and end-all of politics. Standing on principle gets noticed when the disaster being fought unfolds as predicted.

Of course, the polls could change by November 2014. But Obamacare is so deeply flawed that its ownership will hurt the Democrats and benefit the GOP.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/ted_cruz_and_mike_lee_being_vindicated_on_shutdown.html#ixzz2mzQp37y3

this is not a vindication of the shutdown but a repudiation of the horrible rollout of Obamacare (website malfunction, cancelled policies, etc..)

the rise you see in Generic Dem Candidate was a result of the public backlash AGAINST the shutdown which they blamed on Repubs and then then the crash in Dem support was due to the horrible roll out of Obamacare

Report to moderator   Logged
temple_of_dis
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 889


togtfo


View Profile
« Reply #207 on: December 30, 2013, 02:47:39 PM »

the dem run another man with no chance of winning, smart  Cheesy

fixed

hitlery isn't a man
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40826


View Profile
« Reply #208 on: January 10, 2014, 05:09:51 PM »

Cruz Calls President ‘Dangerous And Terrifying’
January 10, 2014

AUSTIN, Texas (CBS Houston/AP) — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has told a conservative conference that President Barack Obama is lawless, providing the right wing rhetoric that makes him so popular in his home state.

The conservative Republican laid out his reasoning for why he thinks the president is “dangerous and terrifying.”

According to the Statesman, Cruz also slammed Obama for what he referred to as a pattern of “lawlessness on a breathtaking scale.”

“We are a nation of laws and not men,” Cruz was additionally quoted as saying by the website. “If we had a system where a president can pick and choose what laws to follow at utter whim … that is seriously dangerous.”

The public policy conference at which he spoke was sponsored by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Minutes before his address, the organization posted a photograph of Cruz on their official Facebook page.

His address comes just one day after he released a statement on his official website that took aim at Obama’s “promise zone.”

“It’s altogether fitting that President Obama is … talking about income inequality because income inequality has increased dramatically as a direct result of his economic policies,” the statement reads. “Unfortunately, rather than stop Washington’s job-killing policies, President Obama proposes yet more government spending and debt.”

It concludes, “All of America needs to be a real ‘Promise Zone’ – with reduced barriers to small businesses creating private-sector jobs – and we should start by repealing every word of Obamacare, building the Keystone pipeline, abolishing the IRS, and rolling back abusive regulations.”

Cruz has garnered national attention by frequently condemning the Obama administration and the federal health care overhaul. In addition to calling for a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act, he said he would replace it with a conservative alternative that would expand health care coverage.

Cruz also criticized Obama for not enforcing drug laws in states that have legalized use of marijuana.

Phillip Martin, deputy director of the liberal Progress Texas group, said Cruz’s positions have damaged the nation, particularly when he led Republican efforts to shut down the U.S. government if Obama did not repeal his health care program.

“Ted Cruz’s temper tantrums cost taxpayers billions of dollars and did nothing for the 6 million Texans without health insurance,” he said.
Cruz is often mentioned as a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/10/cruz-calls-president-dangerous-and-terrifying/
Report to moderator   Logged
AbrahamG
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2125

The vagina is my third favorite hole.


View Profile
« Reply #209 on: January 10, 2014, 08:41:07 PM »

fixed

hitlery isn't a man

Very clever you are indeed.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3733


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #210 on: January 11, 2014, 07:51:26 PM »

Well, Ted Cruz certainly is a competent lawyer (and, maybe even a law professor: he just published a great paper containing original legal scholarship, a rare if not unheard of thing for a sitting U.S. Senator to do such a thing) and he might make a decent Judge if he could divorce his personal beliefs from the law, but President?

I can't think of anything that makes me think that he's the person I want at the helm. I really can't. on the other hand, I can think of a few reason as to why I don't.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24894



View Profile
« Reply #211 on: January 11, 2014, 10:00:18 PM »

Well, Ted Cruz certainly is a competent lawyer (and, maybe even a law professor: he just published a great paper containing original legal scholarship, a rare if not unheard of thing for a sitting U.S. Senator to do such a thing) and he might make a decent Judge if he could divorce his personal beliefs from the law, but President?

I can't think of anything that makes me think that he's the person I want at the helm. I really can't. on the other hand, I can think of a few reason as to why I don't.
give it a day or two AV, wait until you see the dem candidate who is ready to double down on the progressive policies we have seen for the last 5 years...youll be begging to vote for the rep candidate...

when the best dem candidate is hillary "what difference does it make now" clinton...well just refer to the above
Report to moderator   Logged
AbrahamG
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2125

The vagina is my third favorite hole.


View Profile
« Reply #212 on: January 16, 2014, 06:19:31 PM »

give it a day or two AV, wait until you see the dem candidate who is ready to double down on the progressive policies we have seen for the last 5 years...youll be begging to vote for the rep candidate...

when the best dem candidate is hillary "what difference does it make now" clinton...well just refer to the above

I wish what you said was right.  I am still waiting for some "progressive" policies.  Obama isn't half the liberal Richard Nixon was.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81871


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #213 on: January 27, 2014, 11:21:42 PM »

In the span of a year, Cruz has transformed himself from a little-known Senate candidate into the face of a government shutdown that has roiled Washington politics and raised questions about the viability of the American political process.

Sen Cruz.... The shutdown is the #1 thing you have accomplished.  Own it... Brag about it.  Don't deny it - it's your #1 source of street cred with your base!



Veteran CBS host laughs in Cruz’s face after he repeatedly denies shutting down government

“The question I asked you was, would you ever conceive of trying to shut down the government again?” Schieffer pressed, clearly not buying in to the alternate reality.

“As I said, I didn’t threaten to shut down the government the last time,” Cruz insisted. “I don’t think we should ever shut down the government. And I repeatedly voted…”

“Well,” Schieffer interrupted, laughing out of frustration. “If you didn’t threaten to shut down the government, who was it that did?”

“President Obama,” Cruz said.

MORE plus video:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/26/veteran-cbs-host-laughs-in-cruzs-face-after-he-repeatedly-denies-shutting-down-government/
Report to moderator   Logged

Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40826


View Profile
« Reply #214 on: January 28, 2014, 10:06:47 AM »

Cruz to Obama: Apologize in Speech for Lost Health Coverage
Monday, 27 Jan 2014
By Greg Richter

Sen. Ted Cruz has a suggestion to President Barack Obama for his State of the Union address Tuesday: look the American people in the eye and say he's sorry to everyone who has lost health insurance under Obamacare.

"Unfortunately, the odds are not high" he'll do it, Cruz, R-Texas., said on Fox News Channel's "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren."

"This president has not taken responsibility for the harm that has come from his policies," Cruz said Monday.

Van Susteren noted that Obama did apologize in a November TV interview.

"An apology is empty if there's no action after it," Cruz responded.

The senator said he goes home to Texas almost every weekend and meets people who say they've lost their coverage and are scared.

Though 48 million were reported to have been without health insurance before the Affordable Care Act began accepting enrollments Oct. 1, there have been only 3 million new enrollees, and only 330,000 of those didn't already have coverage, Cruz said.

It would have been cheaper to have sent each of them $1 million, which would have cost only one-sixth as much as has been spent, he said.

"And it wouldn't have messed up everyone else's insurance," he said.

Open enrollment lasts through the end of March, but actual signups to date haven't met projections. Also, young, healthy people, who were supposed to have provided the plan's financial support, have been slow to sign on.

Asked by Van Susteren what he saw as Obamacare's "breaking point," Cruz said there were a series of them. The first came in the fall, when 5 million people lost their healthcare coverage because of the law. The second, which is happening now, is the spikes in premiums seen by younger people.

The final shoes to drop will come in the spring, he said, when premiums go up for everyone and people realize they can't see their current doctors. Finally, he said, large companies will drop their employees as the employer mandate kicks in and let them fend for themselves on the healthcare exchanges.

Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Orrin Hatch of Utah, and Richard Burr of North Carolina on Monday presented their own alternative to Obamacare, the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment Act, or CARE Act. It would keep parts of Obamacare but give more power to states and individuals.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Ted-Cruz-union-sorry-Obamacare/2014/01/27/id/549355#ixzz2riJghh2n
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24839


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #215 on: January 28, 2014, 10:47:47 AM »

Sen Cruz.... The shutdown is the #1 thing you have accomplished.  Own it... Brag about it.  Don't deny it - it's your #1 source of street cred with your base!



Veteran CBS host laughs in Cruz’s face after he repeatedly denies shutting down government

“The question I asked you was, would you ever conceive of trying to shut down the government again?” Schieffer pressed, clearly not buying in to the alternate reality.

“As I said, I didn’t threaten to shut down the government the last time,” Cruz insisted. “I don’t think we should ever shut down the government. And I repeatedly voted…”

“Well,” Schieffer interrupted, laughing out of frustration. “If you didn’t threaten to shut down the government, who was it that did?”

“President Obama,” Cruz said.

MORE plus video:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/26/veteran-cbs-host-laughs-in-cruzs-face-after-he-repeatedly-denies-shutting-down-government/

iron clad proof that Ted Cruz is certifiably insane and not competent to hold any public office
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40826


View Profile
« Reply #216 on: January 29, 2014, 11:13:53 AM »

Ted Cruz: The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama
In the nation's history, there is simply no precedent for an American president so wantonly ignoring federal law.
By TED CRUZ CONNECT
Jan. 28, 2014

Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. On Monday, Mr. Obama acted unilaterally to raise the minimum wage paid by federal contracts, the first of many executive actions the White House promised would be a theme of his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The president's taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." America's Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

Enlarge Image

At a White House reception for U.S. mayors, Jan. 23. Reuters

Rule of law doesn't simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Yet rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying and waiving portions of the laws he is charged to enforce. When Mr. Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On many of those policy issues, reasonable minds can disagree. Mr. Obama may be right that some of those laws should be changed. But the typical way to voice that policy disagreement, for the preceding 43 presidents, has been to work with Congress to change the law. If the president cannot persuade Congress, then the next step is to take the case to the American people. As President Reagan put it: "If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" of electoral accountability.

President Obama has a different approach. As he said recently, describing his executive powers: "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." Under the Constitution, that is not the way federal law is supposed to work.

The Obama administration has been so brazen in its attempts to expand federal power that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Justice Department's efforts to expand federal power nine times since January 2012.

There is no example of lawlessness more egregious than the enforcement—or nonenforcement—of the president's signature policy, the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Obama has repeatedly declared that "it's the law of the land." Yet he has repeatedly violated ObamaCare's statutory text.

The law says that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees will face the employer mandate on Jan. 1, 2014. President Obama changed that, granting a one-year waiver to employers. How did he do so? Not by going to Congress to change the text of the law, but through a blog post by an assistant secretary at Treasury announcing the change.

The law says that only Americans who have access to state-run exchanges will be subject to employer penalties and may obtain ObamaCare premium subsidies. This was done to entice the states to create exchanges. But, when 34 states decided not to establish state-run exchanges, the Obama administration announced that the statutory words "established by State" would also mean "established by the federal government."

The law says that members of Congress and their staffs' health coverage must be an ObamaCare exchange plan, which would prevent them from receiving their current federal-employee health subsidies, just like millions of Americans who can't receive such benefits. At the behest of Senate Democrats, the Obama administration instead granted a special exemption (deeming "individual" plans to be "group" plans) to members of Congress and their staffs so they could keep their pre-existing health subsidies.

Most strikingly, when over five million Americans found their health insurance plans canceled because ObamaCare made their plans illegal—despite the president's promise "if you like your plan, you can keep it"—President Obama simply held a news conference where he told private insurance companies to disobey the law and issue plans that ObamaCare regulated out of existence.

In other words, rather than go to Congress and try to provide relief to the millions who are hurting because of the "train wreck" of ObamaCare (as one Senate Democrat put it), the president instructed private companies to violate the law and said he would in effect give them a get-out-of-jail-free card—for one year, and one year only. Moreover, in a move reminiscent of Lewis Carroll's looking-glass world, President Obama simultaneously issued a veto threat if Congress passed legislation doing what he was then ordering.

In the more than two centuries of our nation's history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking private companies to do the same. As my colleague Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa asked, "This was the law. How can they change the law?"

Similarly, 11 state attorneys general recently wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that the continuing changes to ObamaCare are "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law." The attorneys general correctly observed that "the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action."

In the past, when Republican presidents abused their power, many Republicans—and the press—rightly called them to account. Today many in Congress—and the press—have chosen to give President Obama a pass on his pattern of lawlessness, perhaps letting partisan loyalty to the man supersede their fidelity to the law.

But this should not be a partisan issue. In time, the country will have another president from another party. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.

That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.

Mr. Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, serves as the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308.html
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24894



View Profile
« Reply #217 on: January 29, 2014, 05:18:53 PM »

iron clad proof that Ted Cruz is certifiably insane and not competent to hold any public office
both of them made the choice to shut it down, it wasnt one sided
Report to moderator   Logged
JOHN MATRIX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12039


democrats are racist and anti-american


View Profile
« Reply #218 on: January 31, 2014, 08:40:07 AM »

Ted Cruz: The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama
In the nation's history, there is simply no precedent for an American president so wantonly ignoring federal law.
By TED CRUZ CONNECT
Jan. 28, 2014

Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. On Monday, Mr. Obama acted unilaterally to raise the minimum wage paid by federal contracts, the first of many executive actions the White House promised would be a theme of his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The president's taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." America's Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

Enlarge Image

At a White House reception for U.S. mayors, Jan. 23. Reuters

Rule of law doesn't simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Yet rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying and waiving portions of the laws he is charged to enforce. When Mr. Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On many of those policy issues, reasonable minds can disagree. Mr. Obama may be right that some of those laws should be changed. But the typical way to voice that policy disagreement, for the preceding 43 presidents, has been to work with Congress to change the law. If the president cannot persuade Congress, then the next step is to take the case to the American people. As President Reagan put it: "If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" of electoral accountability.

President Obama has a different approach. As he said recently, describing his executive powers: "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." Under the Constitution, that is not the way federal law is supposed to work.

The Obama administration has been so brazen in its attempts to expand federal power that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Justice Department's efforts to expand federal power nine times since January 2012.

There is no example of lawlessness more egregious than the enforcement—or nonenforcement—of the president's signature policy, the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Obama has repeatedly declared that "it's the law of the land." Yet he has repeatedly violated ObamaCare's statutory text.

The law says that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees will face the employer mandate on Jan. 1, 2014. President Obama changed that, granting a one-year waiver to employers. How did he do so? Not by going to Congress to change the text of the law, but through a blog post by an assistant secretary at Treasury announcing the change.

The law says that only Americans who have access to state-run exchanges will be subject to employer penalties and may obtain ObamaCare premium subsidies. This was done to entice the states to create exchanges. But, when 34 states decided not to establish state-run exchanges, the Obama administration announced that the statutory words "established by State" would also mean "established by the federal government."

The law says that members of Congress and their staffs' health coverage must be an ObamaCare exchange plan, which would prevent them from receiving their current federal-employee health subsidies, just like millions of Americans who can't receive such benefits. At the behest of Senate Democrats, the Obama administration instead granted a special exemption (deeming "individual" plans to be "group" plans) to members of Congress and their staffs so they could keep their pre-existing health subsidies.

Most strikingly, when over five million Americans found their health insurance plans canceled because ObamaCare made their plans illegal—despite the president's promise "if you like your plan, you can keep it"—President Obama simply held a news conference where he told private insurance companies to disobey the law and issue plans that ObamaCare regulated out of existence.

In other words, rather than go to Congress and try to provide relief to the millions who are hurting because of the "train wreck" of ObamaCare (as one Senate Democrat put it), the president instructed private companies to violate the law and said he would in effect give them a get-out-of-jail-free card—for one year, and one year only. Moreover, in a move reminiscent of Lewis Carroll's looking-glass world, President Obama simultaneously issued a veto threat if Congress passed legislation doing what he was then ordering.

In the more than two centuries of our nation's history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking private companies to do the same. As my colleague Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa asked, "This was the law. How can they change the law?"

Similarly, 11 state attorneys general recently wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that the continuing changes to ObamaCare are "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law." The attorneys general correctly observed that "the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action."

In the past, when Republican presidents abused their power, many Republicans—and the press—rightly called them to account. Today many in Congress—and the press—have chosen to give President Obama a pass on his pattern of lawlessness, perhaps letting partisan loyalty to the man supersede their fidelity to the law.

But this should not be a partisan issue. In time, the country will have another president from another party. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.

That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.

Mr. Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, serves as the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308.html


Any of you liberals care to dispute anything he said here? Or is it just easier to call him 'crazy' Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40826


View Profile
« Reply #219 on: January 31, 2014, 09:25:47 AM »

Cruz: House GOP Immigration Plan Amounts to 'Amnesty'
Friday, 31 Jan 2014
By Melissa Clyne

Tackling immigration reform before the midterm elections in November will splinter the GOP and fumble the party’s opportunity to regain the Senate, predicts Sen. Ted Cruz.

Granting legal status to illegal immigrants, as Republican House leaders recommended Thursday, is tantamount to amnesty, according to Cruz.

"Amnesty is wrong in any circumstance, and if we are going to fix our broken immigration system — and we should — it makes much more sense to do so next year, so that we are negotiating a responsible solution with a Republican Senate majority," the Texas Republican and tea party favorite told Breitbart.

“Anyone pushing an amnesty bill right now should go ahead and put a 'Harry Reid for Majority Leader' bumper sticker on their car, because that will be the likely effect if Republicans refuse to listen to the American people and foolishly change the subject from Obamacare to amnesty.”

House Republicans this week called for a renewed push to create a path to legal status for illegal aliens, a prickly issue within the party.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan maintains that the GOP plan, contained in a set of guiding principles released by the leadership, is not “an automatic pathway to citizenship,” but would allow immigrants to obtain work permits and green cards if border security and other benchmarks are met, The Hill reports.

The House leadership approach to immigration reform also calls for a new guest-worker program, and increase in high-skilled work visas and a pathway to citizenship for children brought into the U.S. illegally, The Hill noted.

Cruz and other GOP conservatives believe that any immigration overhaul should focus first strengthening border security to ebb the flow of illegal immigrants before even considering ways to grant legal or citizenship status to the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States.

Republicans are united in their opposition to Obamacare and are hoping to capitalize on the program’s failures in November’s midterm elections. But if immigration reform overshadows it, key conservative groups opposed to the healthcare law say it could kill GOP chances of retaking the Senate and adding seats in the House.

“There’s absolutely no doubt that an immigration push is going to divide the Republican Party and take the focus off Obamacare,” Heritage Action spokesman Dan Holler told Bloomberg Businessweek, which reported earlier this week that Cruz was meeting with House tea party Republicans.

“I very much hope the House of Representatives does not go down that road, and I don’t believe they will,” he said. “It’s certainly something the American people don’t want to see Congress do.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/immigration-cruz-splinter-Republicans/2014/01/31/id/550124#ixzz2rzh0FqdO
Report to moderator   Logged
chadstallion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2358



View Profile
« Reply #220 on: February 03, 2014, 06:04:21 PM »


Any of you liberals care to dispute anything he said here? Or is it just easier to call him 'crazy' Roll Eyes
saves time to say crazy. less key strokes. unless one is of the cut and paste school of 333386.
Report to moderator   Logged

Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24839


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #221 on: February 03, 2014, 06:23:11 PM »

both of them made the choice to shut it down, it wasnt one sided

false but I have no doubt you believe that

Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24894



View Profile
« Reply #222 on: February 03, 2014, 06:28:07 PM »

false but I have no doubt you believe that


Roll Eyes have fun voting for nancy bat shit crazy pelosi again
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24839


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #223 on: February 03, 2014, 07:57:38 PM »

Roll Eyes have fun voting for nancy bat shit crazy pelosi again

Thanks, I will.

I also truly hope you get the opportunity to vote for Cruz for POTUS

It think having him on the ticket would be wonderful for the Dems
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81871


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #224 on: February 03, 2014, 08:41:36 PM »

Cruz needs to get in the gym and lose that 50's goober look.  You know, the weird, gross fat man face.   He's smart and brilliant ideas and aside from the whole, "i never tried to shut down the govt, it was all obama" lol...

aside from that, he's a great candidate who hasn't stepped in shit, AT ALL, like Christie and the 47% guy back in 2012.   He has a solid record and can really win... but he's gotta work on this look.  Cardio maybe, perhaps a different hairstyle, or a more serious look to him.  He just needs to work on that.  get jacked or epic leans or something.


* ted_cruz7.jpg (350.93 KB, 750x500 - viewed 20 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!