Ted Cruz stands out at CPAC

Flickr/ Gage Skidmore

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — This past weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, every possible candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination laid out his case for being the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. Every speaker from Jeb Bush to Rand Paul to Ben Carson used the opportunity to burnish his conservative credentials and present himself as the most conservative candidate in the building.

Sen. Ted Cruz was one of the few individuals who gave the audience more than just conservative platitudes and anti-Obama rhetoric. Cruz gave the audience two very clear and concise reasons why he stands apart from the crowd and why he can be trusted: He has the battle scars to prove that he has stood up for conservative principles, and he can bring together all three legs of the Republican Party.

He has backed up his words with actions.

Most of the possible candidates focused their CPAC speeches on strong anti-Obma rhetoric and promises to the American people about what they will do in the future. In politics today, there is no reason to believe that any politician will stand up for certain principles once he gains power, unless he has defended those principles before, especially at times when standing up for them was not politically or personally beneficial.

Cruz reminded the crowd that he has fought for conservative principles and policies. “Talk is cheap,” he began, “actions speak far, far louder than words. We need to look to people who walk the walk and dont just talk the talk. I had a former boss who used to say, ‘If I’m ever accused of being a Christian, I’d like for there to be enough evidence to convict me.’ It is equally true of being a conservative. If youre really a conservative you will have been in the trenches, you will bear the scars, you will have been fighting the fights.”

Cruz also emphasized that he is willing to go against the grain and stand up to members of his own party to defend his conservative values and the promises he made to the people of Texas when he ran for Senate. “If you have a candidate that has stood against Democrats, thats great! But when have you been willing to stand up against Republicans? When have you been willing to stand with the people?”

Cruz has fought both Democrats and Republicans in Washington on many issues, including Obamacare, gun control, the debt ceiling, sanctions against Iran, Obama’s executive amnesty, the IRS targeting scandal, net neutrality, and leading the way on exposing the truth about Benghazi. He has taken a huge amount of unfair criticism from the Republican establishment on the many occasions when he has stood up for conservative values rather than towing the party line.

Cruz has kept every single promise he made to the people of Texas when he ran for Senate, regardless of the personal or political cost that he faced at the time. This lends him much more credibility than just about every other candidate who spoke.

He can bring together all three legs of the Republican Party

Republicans, if they want to win in 2016, must be able to bring together all three legs of the Republican Party: national security conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. Cruz is one of the few candidates who can appeal to all three.

Cruz made this point in his speech: “We need to reassemble the Reagan Coalition. We bring together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and national security conservatives. We stand strong for economic growth, but we also stand for life and marriage. We defend constitutional rights but we also stand and lead the fight against ISIS and a nuclear Iran.”

He discussed how exactly to do this, and added a very strong jab at Hillary Clinton in the process. “We do that fundamentally, by standing with the people, and not with Washington. Washington wants Obamacare; the people want liberty. Washington wants amnesty; the people want rule of law. Washington wants power over the internet, the people want freedom online … Hillary Clinton embodies the corruption of Washington … we need to run a populous campaign standing for hardworking men and women. We need to take the power out of Washington, and bring it back to the American people.”

The Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy has failed in every area of the world where they have involved themselves. Therefore, there is no doubt that foreign policy will be a huge topic in 2016. This bodes badly for Sen. Rand Paul, whose foreign policy is very similar to his father’s. That was the one issue that made Ron Paul an outcast with national security conservatives.

Paul and others will have a difficult time with the social conservative base as well, which is concerned with defending life from conception and traditional marriage. Cruz will be one of the very few candidates that appeals to all three branches.

In his speech, Cruz emphasized how many great conservative candidates may get in the race in 2016, and he is right; but he also clearly and cleverly differentiated himself in two very critical areas. Cruz will be a major player in 2016, and he gave two very strong reasons why he should be the next Republican nominee for President last weekend at CPAC.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • There is one strange inconsistency in Sen. Cruz apparence at CPAC 2015. When asked about his eligibility after his CPAC speech in a Q&A with Fox host Sean Hannity, Sen Cruz said, “I was born in Calgary, my mother was an American citizen by birth, under federal law that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”

    This is incorrect. The title of the federal law Sen Cruz is referencing is “8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.” Now for you and I, this may seem like small potatoes, but for a guy like Sen. Cruz, a lawyer, with a Harvard Law degree, clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the SCOTUS, and his stellar performance as the solicitor general of the state of Texas, it’s hard to believe Sen Cruz misquoted the federal law that actually defines US citizenship at birth.

    • Claudia Bird

      You are incorrect. Mr. Cruz was referring to TITLE III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
      Chapter 1 Sec. 301 (a), para. (7).

      • I stand corrected. While 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth is the statute Sen Cruz, himself, has quoted that makes him a US citizen by birth, TITLE III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION Chapter 1 Sec. 301 (a), para. (7) is indeed the title of the very same statute enforce in 1952, which would govern his birthdate.

        However, you might want to read just a bit further to (b) of that same section wherein it states: “Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United States for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.”

        Want another challenge? Find anywhere in Title 8 or Title III where it refers to obtaining US citizenship by birth and you can call me Susan.

        • Claudia Bird

          I have read the section you are referring to. The first sentence under the TITLE III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION Chapter 1 Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
          Senator Cruz has been fully vetted on this subject. Not even the liberal media will touch this one!

          • Contrary to popular belief; the holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) did not hold Wong to be a “natural born citizen.” Rather, it held him to be a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and not by virtue of the common law that defines a natural born citizen. Now many want to change the words of the statute, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), that makes Senator Cruz a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth. The text of this statute says he is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” not “by birth.”

            “At birth,” whereas “by birth,” as applied to citizenship, refers to birth alone being sufficient to cause citizenship to occur. Under American common law, as opposed to English common law,* as confirmed by naturalization Acts of Congress, U.S. citizenship attaches to a child “by birth” without the need of any law to allow that to occur, when the child is born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. A true natural born citizen becomes a natural born citizen because s/he does not need a naturalization Act of Congress or the Fourteenth Amendment to make him/er so. His/er birth in the United States to U.S. citizen parents makes him/er a natural born citizen. Hence, s/he becomes a citizen “by birth” alone and without the need of any law to make him/er so, and surely without the need of any naturalization in whatever form it may come.

            On the other hand, “at birth,” when applied to citizenship, refers to citizenship occurring at the moment of birth. It does not tell us what is necessary for that citizenship to occur. Also, positive law can fix events to be recognized as of any time, past, present, or future. There is nothing natural about the process of simply fixing by law when something occurred. To know what is necessary to occur for one to be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” we have to look to law which creates that status. That law is either the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress, which are the only sources of law that exist which create that status. One has to satisfy what is written in those laws in order to be a “citizen” “at birth” or else one is not a citizen at all, unless one satisfies another one of Congress’s naturalization Acts or treaties which then would make one a citizen after birth. If one needs the benefit of a law in order to be a citizen, then one is not nor can one be a natural born citizen.

            Ted Cruz became a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” because a law provided that he could be one. That law, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), is a naturalization Act of Congress. Without that law, he would not have been a citizen at all. Hence, it was not his birth alone that was sufficient to give him his birth status, which is the case for natural born citizens. Rather, it was Congress through its naturalization statute that considered him to be a citizen of the United States at birth. In this statute, Congress was willing to overlook the fact that he was born out of the United States, but only because he was born to a U.S. citizen parent. If one needs the grace of Congress in order to be a citizen of the United States, one is not a natural born citizen, for a natural born citizen does not need Congress to make him/er such. Remember that we had original citizens and natural born citizens before there was a Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress.

            Since, Cruz needed Congress through one of its naturalization Acts to consider him to be a citizen of the United States “at birth,” he did not became a citizen “by birth” alone. He is therefore not and cannot be a natural born citizen.”

            * English common law did not extend to the American colonies, according to Blackstone, as they were considered conquered territory.

          • Claudia Bird

            Well done, I agree.