Provide our veterans the care they have been promised
Ted Cruz is committed to honoring our veterans, and providing them the care they have been promised.
The mismanagement in the VA is unacceptable. We should expand options for our
service members' health care so they have more choices and more immediate service.
A Cruz administration will bring more accountability to the VA and provide greater options for our veterans.
Source: 2016 presidential campaign website TedCruz.org
, Mar 15, 2016
Snowden guilty of treason, but exposed massive surveillance
Q: Senator Cruz, in 2013, you said you were open to the possibility that Edward Snowden had performed a considerable public service in revealing certain aspects of the NSA procedures. Many of your colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Rubio, called
him a traitor. It took you until January of this year to call him a traitor.
CRUZ: As someone who spent much of his life in law enforcement, I believe you should start with the facts and evidence first before ending up with the verdict.
When the news first broke of the US government engaging in massive surveillance on American citizens, that was a very troubling development, and it's why the Congress acted to correct it. Since then, the evidence is clear that Snowden committed treason.
What Snowden did made it easier for terrorists to avoid detection. And Snowden's behavior afterwards--he fled to Russia, he fled to China--indicates that he was not a whistleblower, but instead he was undermining the ability to defend this country.
Waterboarding isn't torture; but not for low-level officers
Q: You have said, "torture is wrong, unambiguously, period. Civilized nations do not engage in torture." Is waterboarding torture?
CRUZ: Well, under the definition of torture, no, it's not. Under the law, torture is excruciating pain that is equivalent
to losing organs and systems, so under the definition of torture, it is not. It is enhanced interrogation, it is vigorous interrogation, but it does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.
Q: As president, would you bring it back?
CRUZ: I would not bring it back in any sort of widespread use. And indeed, I joined with Senator McCain in legislation that would prohibit line officers from employing it because I think bad things happen when enhanced interrogation is employed at
lower levels. But when it comes to keeping this country safe, if it were necessary to, say, prevent a city from facing an imminent terrorist attack, you can rest assured that I would use whatever enhanced interrogation methods we could.
Torture is wrong, unambiguously; America does not need it
One year after a bracing Senate report on post-9/11 CIA interrogation practices led Congress to ban waterboarding and other forms of torture, the leading Republican presidential candidates are talking like it's 2002 all over again. With one exception:
Ted Cruz. "Torture is wrong, unambiguously. Period. The end," the Texas senator said in December 2014. Cruz, whose own father was tortured in Cuba, reaffirmed that position last month, saying that "America does not need torture to protect ourselves."
Last year Congress enshrined a torture ban into federal law: In June, the Senate voted 78-21 to approve the McCain-Feinstein amendment. Cruz backed the amendment.
The McCain-Feinstein amendment requires that all interrogation comply with the Army Field
Manual, a publicly available document that forbids waterboarding as well as the use of electric shocks, dogs, nudity, hypothermia and mock executions. All were elements of the CIA's interrogation program in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
We need is a commander in chief who is focused like a laser on keeping this country safe and on defeating radical Islamic terrorism. First, we should pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act, legislation I've introduced that says if an American goes and joins
ISIS and wages jihad against America, that you forfeit your citizenship and you cannot come in on a passport. If I'm elected president, we will not let in refugees from countries controlled by ISIS or Al Qaida.
Source: Fox Business Republican 2-tier debate
, Jan 14, 2016
On day one, rip to shreds the Iranian nuclear deal
The next president will inherit President Obama's Iran deal. The single biggest national security threat right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran. This deal will send over $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, making the Obama administration
the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. This deal will accelerate Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.
Label the enemy that Obama won't: radical Islamic terrorists
We need a commander in chief that speaks the truth. We will not defeat radical Islamic terrorism so long as we have a president unwilling to utter the words, "radical Islamic terrorism". President Obama, at a prayer breakfast, essentially acted as an
apologist. He said, "Well, gosh, the crusades, the inquisitions..." We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt's President al-Sisi, a Muslim, when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world.
Source: Fox News/Facebook Top Ten First Tier debate transcript
, Aug 6, 2015
Benghazi: administration knew right away it was terrorism
The years of chaos that followed the so-called Arab Spring [included] four dead Americans at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. The Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi compound was coordinated and carried out by radical Islamic terrorists.
The Secretary of Defense testified to the Senate that he knew "immediately" that it was a terrorist attack. And yet for weeks President Obama and Secretary Clinton insisted instead that it was a spontaneous protest over an Internet video.
The administration's feckless response to Benghazi was emblematic of President Obama's long-standing approach to radical Islamic terrorism--three words that almost never enter his vocabulary in the same sentence. In his worldview, the real root
problem behind terrorism is disaffected youth who have been antagonized by American and Western imperialism. He and his administration dogmatically refuse to call terrorism "Islamic" or "Islamist," nor will they reference "jihad."
No more domestic BRAC until overseas BRAC closures
I introduced several positive amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, in 2013 and again in 2014. In particular, we increased the protection of religious liberty in the military; mandated that the Defense Department address the growing
threat of missile attack from the Gulf of Mexico; invited Taiwan to join the Navy's military exercises; and prohibited a new domestic base realignment and closure (BRAC) process until the Defense Department first conducts an overseas BRAC process.
Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.297-8
, Jun 30, 2015
Military sex abuse victims can't trust commander as arbiter
In keeping with the tradition of the U.S. military, the decision to refer cases for prosecution of a crime--whether refusing an order or murder--lies solely with the commanding officer. That is one reason that tens of thousands of cases of unwanted
sexual contact go unreported in the U.S. military every year. Victims are afraid to report the crime to their superiors, who are the ultimate arbiters of whether the offenders will be prosecuted or not. In the most flagrant cases, those arbiters are
the offenders themselves.
I signed onto the bill as a cosponsor. The truth is that too many victims fear that their commanders cannot be objective about the men and women in their command. Nor can they know the ins and outs of sexual assault, as an
experienced military prosecutor does. Israel, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany have made reforms similar to the ones Gillibrand put forward. The result was a marked improvement in how cases of sexual assault are reported and prosecuted.
Constitution disallows drone strikes on US citizens in US
One time when Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the Judiciary Committee, I asked him a simple question: "If a US citizen on US soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that
citizen?" [After numerous evasions, I demanded, "You are unable to give a simple, one-word, one-syllable answer: no."
Only then did Holder say 'no.' Perhaps this reflected the view of the left that the Constitution imposes no meaningful restraints on
government power other than whatever the restraints of propriety might be. There is a role for drones in military operations overseas. There may also be a legitimate role for drones to act with deadly force to prevent an imminent threat in the US, like
Pearl Harbor. But there is no plausible argument under the Bill of Rights that the federal government has the authority to use a drone on US soil to target with lethal force a U.S. citizen who poses no immediate danger to the lives of other Americans.
American Exceptionalism: we liberate; others subjugate
Our remarkable fusion of political and economic freedom has given America a unique position in the globe. The phrase "American Exceptionalism" has been much misunderstood: President Obama famously said in 2009 that he believed in it, "just as the
British believe in British exceptionalism or Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." But with all due respect to our British and Greek friends, American exceptionalism is different. We are the leader of the free world.
The indispensable nation, the country that sets the example for the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that we impose our model on other nations, but that we set the aspirations of what
free men and women can achieve. The economic mobility we enjoy has had a global impact, lifting millions out of poverty. Equally remarkably, we have used the greatest military the planet has ever seen to liberate rather than subjugate.
The White House dismissed press inquiries about the attack by saying, "Benghazi was a long time ago." But many more questions remain.
Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi?
attacks, were any military assets ordered to stand down?
If the secretary of defense thought there was "no question" this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Secretary Clinton and Pres. Obama all tell the American people that the cause was
a "spontaneous demonstration" about an Internet video?
Why did the FBI release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack only eight months after the fact?
Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?
Why is the administration
apparently unaware of the whistle-blowers who have been attempting to tell their stories?
When was Pres. Obama told about the murder of our ambassador? About the murder of all 4 Americans? What did he do in response?
It is time for some answers.
Source: National Review magazine article by Ted Cruz
, Dec 18, 2014
Torture was rightly outlawed, but keep tactics classified
Cruz took a stand against torture: "Within 48 hours, President Obama has set Guantanamo Bay detainees free, and Senate Democrats have endangered Americans all over the world by releasing classified tactics, which have since rightly been outlawed, used
by the intelligence community in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks," Cruz said in a statement "After six years, enough with saying 'everything is George W. Bush's fault.' It's sad that, with all the threats we face across the globe, Senate
Democrats are still more interested in scoring political points against the Bush Administration than in working together to keep America safe and our military strong."
Like Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio weighed in with one of the strongest
responses, in a joint statement with Idaho's Sen. Jim Risch, calling the release of the report "reckless and irresponsible" and demanding a more current detention and interrogation policy.
Americans who join ISIS should be barred from coming home
Cruz introduced a measure to block Americans who join Islamic State from returning to the country. The proposal failed, but while describing it, he criticized Obama's handling of the threat: "The administration's
ISIS policy is also marked by internal confusion that further demonstrates a lack of focus on what should be our clear mission," he said.
"We always have been good friends," Paul said of Cruz on Fox News's "Hannity." "I'm not real excited about him mischaracterizing my views, and you know, I won't let that pass. I think that, you know, sometimes, people want to stand up and say, 'Hey,
look at me, I'm the next Ronald Reagan.' Well, almost all of us in the party are big fans of Ronald Reagan."˙Paul was responding to Cruz's comments Sunday on ABC's "This Week," in which he invoked Reagan to criticize Paul's foreign policy.
"I don't agree with him on foreign policy," Cruz said then. "I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world.˙And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald
Paul went on to defend his foreign policy, which tends to be less interventionist than other Republicans': "I think on a lot of these issues, yes, that I'm well within the Republican tradition," Paul said.
Suspend Russia from G8 & withdraw from arms control treaties
The US should urge the G8 to suspend Russia immediately on the grounds that it is not contributing to a civil international order [based on the Ukraine invasion].
Congress should start a formal review of the options for US withdrawal from arms
control treaties with Russia.
The secretary of defense should consider the immediate restoration of the full missile defense installations originally planned for Poland and the Czech Republic that were canceled by the Obama administration in 2009.
The president should immediately offer the government of Ukraine in Kiev a free trade agreement indicating that goods are welcome in the US, and explore other options to assist them in their economic recovery that are consistent with free market
principles, including access to US energy exports and assistance to develop Ukraine's own energy resources so as to allow them to be independent of energy blackmail by Russia.
Source: Foreign Policy magazine article by Ted Cruz
, Mar 4, 2014
Opposes TSA and National Defense Authorization Act
Opposes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
Opposes SOPA and other internet censorship
Source: Young Americans for Liberty YALPAC website
, Sep 1, 2012
Fierce advocate of recruiting and growing the military
Ted Cruz has been a fierce advocate of the military, including their ability to recruit and grow their force, and their right to religious expression. Cruz has worked to ensure that members of the Armed Services have all the rights and abilities necessar
to keep America free and secure.
Ted authored an amicus brief in FAIR v. Rumsfeld successfully defending the federal Solomon Amendment, which requires universities receiving federal funds to grant military recruiters equal access to campuses.
Cruz supports the CC Voters Guide question on military gay marriage
Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues.
The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Prohibiting the military from forcing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages"
Source: Christian Coalition Voter Guide 12-CC-q3c on Oct 31, 2012
Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Cruz co-sponsored Resolution on UN
Congressional Summary:Expressing the conditions for the US becoming a signatory to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
WHEREAS the ATT poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the US as well as to the constitutional rights of US citizens and US sovereignty;
WHEREAS the ATT fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms;
WHEREAS the ATT places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality, recognizing their equal right to transfer arms, and is thereby dangerous to the security of the US;
WHEREAS the ATT will create opportunities to engage in 'lawfare' against the US via the misuse of the treaty's tribunals;
WHEREAS the ATT could hinder the US from fulfilling its strategic and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as Taiwan & Israel;
Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that--
the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty,
and that the Senate should not ratify the ATT; and
that no Federal funds should be authorized to implement the ATT.
Opponent's argument against bill:(United Nations press release, June 3, 2013):
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon str
Source: S.CON.RES.7 & H.CON.RES.23 : 13-SC007 on Mar 13, 2013
No transfers of Gitmo prisoners to US or abroad.
Cruz co-sponsored H.R.401 & S.165
Congressional Summary: To extend and enhance limitations on the transfer or release of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay. No amounts appropriated for any agency of the US Government may be used, for two years, to construct or modify any facility in the US, to house an individual detained at Guantanamo.
Proponents reasons for voting YEA: Rep. WALORSKI: 21 terrorists have been released just in November alone to foreign countries. This measure would repeal current law that has allowed the administration to transfer prisoners to foreign countries and reduce the population at GTMO down to 127. Detainees at GTMO pose a real threat to our national security. HR 401 would prohibit any detainee transfers to Yemen. Yemen's branch of al Qaeda was founded by former GTMO detainees. We cannot risk trusting the world's most dangerous terrorists to its most dangerous places, nor should we simply cut them loose in rich, stable countries with no security
safeguards in place.
Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (CloseGuantanamo.org article, Jan. 2015): The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been open for 13 years. In 2009, President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo within a year. Yet it remains open, undermining America's values and national security. Almost half of the remaining 122 prisoners--55 men in total--were cleared for release in 2010 through 2013. Some of these men were previously cleared by the Bush Administration--some as long ago as 2004. It is unacceptable that the U.S. government continues to hold men that its own national security experts have recommended for release or transfer, and that Congress has intervened to maintain this deplorable state of affairs. We call for the immediate closure of Guantanamo. Guantanamo harms our nation every day it stays open, and it continues to serve as a potent symbol for terrorist recruitment.
Source: Detaining Terrorists to Protect America Act 15_S165 on Feb 23, 2015