Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) spoke at the Texas Public Policy Foundation this week. In the video below of the full speech, Cruz refers to the failed 1993 HillaryCare legislation and quotes “an awfully lot of Republicans in Washington,” coming out with “HillaryCare Light.”buy valium without prescription
buy klonopin online no prescriptionbuy soma no prescription
“We’ll partially socialize healthcare. That’s our proud Republican position.”
Then he quoted former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) standing before a microphone back then saying,
ativan online without prescriptionambien online no prescription
“This will pass over my cold, dead, political body,”
…and what happened? Republican Senators standing to the side, hiding behind a curtain, looked over, and…
valium online no prescriptionambien online without prescription
“he hadn’t been killedxanax online no prescription
“They all ran over behind him and said, ‘yeah, yeah, what he said,'”
The takeaway, HillaryCare would have passed 21 years ago had Gramm not showed the “power of leadership.”
tramadol online no prescription
He declared Barack Obama “dangerous and terrifying” and of “lawlessness on a breathtaking scale.”buy xanax online
I think one of the most dangerous is the consistent pattern of lawlessness from this President and this administration. Three years ago, in the course of the immigration battles, President Obama said he supported the DREAM Act. Okay. You can support the DREAM Act, go advocate for it.buy valium online
People asked him three years ago, do you have the authority to just do this on your own? His answer was, no, no, no. I don’t have the Constitutional authority to do that. And then six months before the last election, suddenly the authority materialized.
Now, set aside what you think of the merits of the DREAM Act, is that decision a good decision, is it a bad decision, and just think for a minute: you’re the President of the United States who goes out and announces, we have immigration laws that are on the books. I’m going to ignore them. I am, with the stroke of a pen, granting amnesty to some 800,000 people. I’m not changing the laws. I’m simply saying, I’m the President and therefore, amnesty is granted.
Let’s take drug policy. A whole lot of folks now are talking about legalizing pot….and you can make reasonable arguments on that issue. The Department of Justice is going to stop prosecuting drug crimes. Didn’t change the law. That’s an issue. You can go to Congress and get a conversation, you can get Democrats and Republicans to look into it and say, we ought to change our drug policy in some way and you can have a real conversation. You can have hearings. You can look at the problems. You can discuss common sense changes that maybe should or shouldn’t happen.
This President didn’t do. He just said, the law says one thing and, mind you, these are criminal laws that say if you do X, Y and Z, you will go to prison. The President announced, no you won’t. Those words on that law-book thing, on your shelf, pay no attention to those.
Let’s take ObamaCare…ObamaCare has single-handedly been a demonstration in lawlessness, at a breathtaking scale. ObamaCare, the statute…the President’s a big fan of saying it’s the Law of the Land. We need to follow the Law of the Land.
Let’s see. That law of the land says on January 1, 2014, the employer mandate shall kick-in for big business. Now, unless my iPhone is broken, I think we passed January 1, 2014 and yet the President just announced unilaterally, no, we’re not enforcing that. I’m granting an exemption to all of big business, and by the way, was this done through a big formal announcement, through an address to the American people — there’s a problem in this law? We’re going to have to change it? No, it was done through a blog posting, by a mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of The Treasury on July 3rd, right before the July 4th break. It just said, by the way, this portion of the law is no longer operative.
In 225 years of our Nation’s history, it used to be, if you want to change a law, you go Congress and say this law isn’t working. Let’s change it. Apparently, all of that was a mistake. Apparently, instead, you can just get a mid-level bureaucrat to put up a blog posting and say this portion of the law doesn’t matter, so…
…what is the law in the United States of America? If you think it’s actually what’s written in the United States Code, the United States Code says big business has to comply January 1, 2014, and the President simply says, no it doesn’t. I’m granting them an exemption. When do they have to comply? Well, right now we think it’s 2015 [after mid-term elections] because he said it’s a year exemption but we’ve been here an hour. That may have changed.
Let’s take another example. Congress. I know no one here could ever imagine that members of Congress want different rules to apply to them than anyone else. That’s really pretty out there. The text of the ObamaCare statute is that members of Congress will be on the exchanges without subsidies, just like millions of Americans. Congress wrote it in there. They said, if we’re going to create this pile of stuff, then we ought to at least eat those stuffed burgers along with everybody else. What happened?…Democrats had a meeting in the Capitol. They invited the President. It was a closed-door meeting. They apparently said to the President, we don’t want to live under ObamaCare. This thing’s bad. Holy Cow, Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to find out what’s in it. We found out. It’s bad! The President said, don’t worry, I’ve got your back and he legally granted an exemption for every member of Congress — just put out a statement, said oh, that little provision that says you gotta be on the exchanges without subsidies, that by the way, you and your staff are freaking out about it — few things are funnier than watching Democratic staff members, who wrote this nonsense in utter, abject panic — what do you mean, I’m going to be thrown on these exchanges and not have subsidies? I might not…what if I can’t see my own doctor? Those are real comments. I’m not making those up.
…and you’re like, is that a slight inconvenience to you?
Or you take the most spectacular of the consequences of ObamaCare that have happened so far and it’s not contrary to the media depiction of the abysmal website. That was a rather amazing display of competence. Over five million Americans have lost their health insurance because of ObamaCare. [this portion ends at 13:52]
He recounts going back to Texas almost every weekend and traveling the state, and hearing from people who tell him they have lost their insurance.He discusses the “If you like your health care, you can keep it” statement that the media insists is “misspeaking,” and the same with the “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” — simply “misspeaking.”
Snippets below of the remainder of the video, or you can pick it up at the 15:41 mark. If I’m quoting directly from the video, it will be indented.
He talks about Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) telling him on camera, that she is not a sixth grader, and he says that even sixth graders know that Congress makes/fixes/changes laws.
He reminds why 5 million have lost their health insurance, because ObamaCare made it illegal. The text of the law said, that health care you like, we don’t like it. It’s illegal.
When the blowback came,
Obama held a press conference and said, insurance companies, I am instructing you now, go issue the policies we just made illegal. As President of the United States, I am directing you…go violate the law. Through a press conference, he instructed private citizens to disregard the law for one year.
At that time,Congress was trying to pass legislation to address the fact that 5 million Americans lost their insurance, and simultaneously, the President said, and I will veto any legislation that does what I’m saying.
There is a level at which this is ludicrous, but there is another level at which this is incredibly dangerous and terrifying.
There have been Republican presidents in the past who have abused their power. The difference is, that when that happened, you had Republicans who stood up and said this is wrong.
When Richard Nixon tried to use the IRS to target political enemies, you had bipartisan condemnation. This is wrong. By the way, Nixon tried to do it but didn’t succeed.
When the Obama administration tried and succeeded in doing so, the Democrats all did their obligatory, for one day, I am outraged! Now please go back to what you were doing before.
Whether you agree with important policies, when the president picks and chooses what laws to follow and what laws to negate, we know what that looks like.
There are countries on this globe where that is how the law works. You look at corrupt countries where Rule of Law is meaningless, where dictators are in power, and they have things that they call law, but what does law mean? Law isn’t the dictate from government. Every country has dictates from government, and yet not every country has Rule of Law.
Rule of Law is the notion that we are a nation of laws and not of men, and that no one, and especially those in political office, are not above the law. If we have a system where the President can pick and choose what laws to follow, at utter whim and discretion, the whole rest of our constitutional structure becomes superfluous. That’s dangerous. That is seriously dangerous.
Many of you will remember a few years ago when George W. Bush was President. How many of you remember the case Medellin v. Texas? In that case, President Bush, a good man, signed an order that tried to order the state courts to obey the World Court. It was wrong. It was unconstitutional. I’m proud of the state of Texas, that stood up to the President who was a Republican, was the former governor of our state, went before the U.S. Supreme Court and said, no president can give away U.S. sovereignty, no president can undermine the Rule of Law in this country. The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, struck down the President’s order and upheld U.S. sovereignty and Rule of Law.
Where are the Democrats? Is there no Democrat in Washington that actually believes in Rule of Law? It it were a Republican President…this wouldn’t be happening, but if it did, there would be Republicans lining up to defend the Rule of Law.
He asks where is the media, where is the reporting on what is actually going on? He says if you care about liberty, an imperial President who defies his constitutional obligation to quote “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” is an extraordinary threat to the liberty of this country.
Cruz closes with a message for the media but he first goes back to Medellin v. Texas.
When the President signed that order telling the state court to obey the World Court, I got a call from the U.S. Solicitor General, a good friend of mine, Paul Clemente, a very, very good man. He said Ted, are you sitting down? …He described to me what the President had just done, but he said, the good news is, the President keeps his finger on the trigger. He decides when to use this new power to set aside state laws. You should be very comforted by that.
My response? A. That’s not much comfort in how it’s being used right now, but B. Paul, there came a Pharoah who knew not Joseph and his children. This President, even if he’s my guy, ain’t gonna be there forever, and if this President has this power, so does the next one and the next one and the next one.
He reminds the media that a president, whether he’s their guy or not, not bound by the law, is no longer a President and if you love liberty, that should concern you greatly.
End of video transcript
Ted Cruz Full Speech at Texas Public Policy Foundation (video)
If you would like to receive Maggie’s Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.