Sen. Ted Cruz to announce presidential bid MondayPublished March 22, 2015
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz is expected to announce on Monday he will run for president in 2016 -- making him the first candidate to formally enter the race, Fox News confirms.
Cruz is expected to make the announcement during a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.
He is expected to start his campaign immediately rather than launch an exploratory committee, which many do as a precursor to a campaign. The move, some say, is expected to send a strong signal that his is ready to run.
Other candidates who have been rumored to run for the GOP nomination include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
Following the announcement, Cruz is slated to speak with Fox News’ Sean Hannity in an exclusive interview.
Cruz, 44, who has made headlines for his conservative stance on immigration, has gone after other Republicans for their more moderate views.
In recent weeks, Cruz has already come under fire over his own citizenship. Two former Justice Department lawyers said last week there is no doubt the Canadian-born senator is eligible to run for the White House.
"There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a 'natural born Citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution," Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, and Paul Clemente, solicitor general in the President George W. Bush administration, wrote in a joint article.
Anti-Cruz "birthers" challenged his citizenship status because he was born in Canada. However, two years ago, Cruz released his birth certificate showing his mother was a U.S. citizen born in Delaware, presumably satisfying the requirements for presidential eligibility as a "natural born citizen."
Last month, Cruz addressed the citizenship issue during a question-and-answer session with moderator Hannity at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I was born in Calgary. My mother was an American citizen by birth,” Cruz said. “Under federal law, that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”
With a little more than a year and half to go before the 2016 election, speculation is heating up that several presidential contenders will soon officially throw their hats into the ring. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who enjoys a wide lead among potential Democratic candidates despite the recent uproar over her use of a personal email account while leading the State Department, is expected to announce her candidacy next month.
Simpson's Saturday stops are:
Pittsburg: 9 a.m. to 10:30 at Pizza Inn (1000 N. Greer Blvd.) with the Camp County Republican Party;
Gladewater: 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Tejas Café (1414 Broadway Ave.) with the Gregg County Libertarian Party;
Mt. Pleasant (1): 2 p.m. to 3:30 at Herschel’s Restaurant (1612 S. Jefferson Ave.) with Titus County Republican Women;
Mt. Pleasant (2): 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Northeast Texas Community College Whatley Center (2886 FM 1735).
For more information, contact Kathi Seay at 512-463-0750 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Written by Kelly Holt
Remember the Alamo?
In 1836, when efforts to gain religious independence and solve other disputes with the Mexican government failed, the residents of Texas went to war. The most famous of the ensuing battles? The Alamo — severely outnumbered by Mexican forces, fewer than 200 Texans bravely fought, and lost. But a month later, General Sam Houston engaged Mexican General Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto, one of the bloodiest battles in our history. The outraged Texans, surprising the overconfident Mexican leader, led the charge with the battle cry “Remember the Alamo!” securing independence for the territory, and avenging losses suffered at the Alamo.
The Spanish mission, one of five established along the San Antonio River, now faces a different, yet no less sinister, threat, along with its sister missions. Saved from destruction by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, which operated the mission for over 100 years, the site was turned over to Texas’ General Land Office in 2011, and the mission has now been nominated for consideration as a United Nations World Heritage site.In Texas’ biennial legislative session, convening in January, State Senator Donna Campbell introduced her Protect the Alamo Act against, incredibly, opposition to retaining Texas control of the site.
The historic mission has become an icon for individual liberty, heroism, and the independent spirit of America for all Americans, but especially Texans who’ve enshrined the site as a sacred place in Lone Star history. Some Texans are wondering where that spirit went as they watch state leadership court the dollars and jobs promised with the UN designation.
Remembering a small skirmish preceding the Battle of the Alamo when a small band of Texans challenged Mexico’s demand to relinquish all its guns with the equivalent of “Oh, yeah? Well, come get ‘em!”, one would think all Texans would be wondering, even considering the promises of money.
According to the Texas Tribune, “A World Heritage designation would add up to $105 million in additional economic activity to Bexar County [home of the Alamo] by 2025, as well as up to 1,100 jobs and as much as $2.2 million in additional hotel tax revenue, according to a 2013 report by the Harbinger Consulting Group.” But the site is already a renowned landmark, and it’s not as if Texans are hurting for jobs, with a 4.6 percent official unemployment rate. A decision is expected in July.
And many are rightly concerned about the unintended consequences of making it a World Heritage Site, such as the loss of property rights, authority over the site, and, well, the absence of any provision in the Texas Constitution to turn over State property to any other agency — not to mention Campbell’s feeling that “anything with U N in it gives me cause for concern.
One major worry uttered by critics is that the site would be “sold” to the UN. In a February hearing, the Tribune explained, the office of newly elected Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush (son of Jeb Bush) told lawmakers that “the General Land Office would only be able to sell the Alamo if lawmakers passed legislation directing them to do so.” Though Deputy Land Commissioner Larry Laine said that “Commissioner Bush would say no to allowing the Alamo to be sold,” he made no guarantees for the future, saying, “I cannot speak for that next commissioner.”
Some Texas bureaucrats are openly dismissive of any land transfer worries. Former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson stated in a 2013 General Land Office press release that a World Heritage Nomination will not change authority, jurisdiction, or ownership of the Alamo or any of the other Spanish missions. Responding to a media report that the UN flag will fly over the Alamo, Patterson responded bluntly: “Horse hockey.”
But the sale of the property may be of least concern. Possession is said to be nine-tenths of the law, and the UN will undoubtedly be exercising authority over the area if the designation goes through.
Infowars.com rightly observed in October 2013, “Sovereign jurisdiction means little when governments and the UN are completely interconnected. Yet as we constantly see with Agenda 21, local city governments adopt policies ‘recommended’ by the UN as if they were law. The UN’s pressure has already been felt in San Antonio after the city nixed a proposed downtown hotel tower because it would have jeopardized the Alamo’s World Heritage status.”
“Other downtown businesses may suffer worse fates because, under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, governments are expected to protect heritage sites beyond their borders, infringing upon private property in the process. In 1995, for example, then President Bill Clinton asked the UN to declare Yellowstone Park in Wyoming a ‘World Heritage Site in Danger,’ giving him the ‘international obligation’ to shut down a private mine three miles away from the park, even though the mine predated the park by 150 years.”
Infowars continued, “In 2002, the UNESCO World Heritage Center published a manual entitled ‘Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites,’ which outlines UN obligations that the historic site managers are expected to follow, stating that ‘the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate’ in managing World Heritage Sites.
The UNESCO constitution also states that UNESCO shall operate as an adjunct of the UN, which claims authority over everything it touches, regardless of statements to the contrary.
Conservative and independent Texans are aghast that their supposedly conservative leadership is supporting this measure. Critics say that Patterson, along with others, should be protecting Texas independence along with its property, instead of piecing it off to a supranational agency not known for sticking to its principles.
Alarmingly, the decision is being made without the consent of Texans. In an end-run around Texans, the National Park Service, according to The Missions of San Antonio website is “leading the World Heritage application process,” obligating Texans’ time, property rights and money to something over which they have no say.
Some of the state’s lawmakers are worried about Cambell’s initiative, claiming that “it could cause the UNESCO voting committee to look unfavorably on the San Antonio nomination.”
“I don’t think there is anyone that disagrees with you about the Alamo and its history,” said Senator Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio). “I don’t think there is any member on this committee that will allow the Alamo to be sold. The concern I have simply is that we are sending the wrong message.”
Independent Texans posit that the “wrong message” is that we care what UNESCO thinks. Keep Texas independent, and remember the Alamo.
Join Pro-Life and Pro-Family activists at the Defense of the Texas Marriage Amendment Rally
Monday, March 23rd at 1 PM on the south steps of the State Capitol in Austin.
It’s time for Christians and conservatives to rise up and take a stand for God’s truth about marriage! We must draw a line in the sand.
This is a call to action. I am asking you to make whatever sacrifices necessary to attend the Defense of Texas Marriage Amendment Rally scheduled for Monday, March 23rd at 1:00 pm on the south steps of the Texas Capitol. Please encourage your family, friends and fellow church members to attend. You might consider taking busloads of people to the rally.
We have over 100 elected State Officials who are sponsoring this event. They are coming under attack by militant homosexuals. That is why Christians and conservatives must have a show of force to let these legislators know that we support them.
Marriage is a God ordained institution between a man and a woman and it is the fundamental foundation of families and of ordered societies: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5).
In the November 8, 2005 General Election, the citizens of Texas passed, by an overwhelming margin of 76% to 24%, a Marriage Amendment to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides that “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”
A fierce battle for the soul of Texas has begun. The liberals and their pro-homosexual allies want to force Texans to redefine marriage and accept 'homosexual mirage’ as morally right.
The idea that homosexuals could be married is a ‘mirage.’ It is contrary to God’s moral order. It’s a counterfeit. It’s fake. It’s a lie. The homosexuals and their supporters are using the liberal federal judges to redefine marriage against the will of the people in Texas and across America, which will force Texans to grant public approval and acceptance of homosexual activity. This will lead to homosexual behavior being taught to school children.
I am calling upon you and entreating you to join our army to protect Biblical marriage and to rally your fellow Christians and conservatives to do likewise.
Alabama’s Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roy Moore, who has been the leading advocate for the states’ sovereign right to protect Biblical marriage, will be the keynote speaker at the Defense of Texas Marriage Amendment Rally scheduled for Monday, March 23rd. He has demonstrated the courage of his convictions by opposing the federal courts’ usurpation of states’ rights in the area of family law and marriage. The Texas Legislature can follow the lead of the Alabama Supreme Court by taking a bold stand to protect Biblical marriage in Texas. This will send a forceful message to the federal courts about the Texas Legislature’s commitment to maintain the moral integrity of our culture in Texas.
Attend the Defense of the Texas Marriage Amendment Rally Monday, March 23rd at 1 PM on the south steps of the State Capitol in Austin and bring your family and friends.
After the rally, you will have an opportunity to visit your state legislator’s office and encourage him or her to defend the Texas Marriage Amendment.
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” - Edmund Burke
Thank you for your commitment to Biblical marriage and for making arrangements to attend the Defense of the Texas Marriage Amendment Rally on March 23rd at 1 PM on the south steps of the State Capitol in Austin.
With much appreciation for your leadership, I remain, as always,
Sincerely yours for Constitutional liberties and the Biblical principles upon which they are based,
Steven F. Hotze, M.D.
Conservative Republicans of Texas
His immigration decrees are not just harmful and illegal; they’re unconstitutional. American immigration law is composed of thousands of pages, written by dozens of Congresses and federal agencies over a span of decades, and signed into law by numerous U.S. presidents.
But President Barack Obama has decided that all that doesn’t matter, and that he can now rule by decree.
Regardless of whether you support or oppose the president’s amnesty plan, the simple fact remains that, in the United States, no individual may or should have that much unchecked power. It flies in the face of the rule of law, which in any government is all that stands between freedom and tyranny.
The rule of law is at the very heart of the case that Texas filed against President Obama in December, an action that has been joined by 25 other states, forming a bipartisan coalition. These plaintiffs are concerned about the president’s unilateral use of executive power to accomplish through edict what he could not achieve legislatively.
And that’s why the full injunction that we won from U.S. district judge Andrew Hanen is so important: It has stopped the president from single-handedly enacting what is effectively a whole new system of laws, in the process granting amnesty to millions of people who came to this country illegally.
Before the court issued its injunction, the federal government was hard at work hiring staff and preparing to distribute forms and information for millions of illegal immigrants to apply for work authorizations. As the court’s opinion made abundantly clear, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to “put the genie back in the bottle” and undo this step once it has been taken.
That was, of course, before last week’s admission by the administration that it had already begun granting expanded employment authorizations to illegal immigrants, in direct contradiction of what it told a U.S. federal court.
It’s also important to remember that the president’s illegal action is a slap in the face to all the people who have tried to come to the United States through established, legal means. The president aims to reward instead those who felt the law shouldn’t apply to them.
All that is disturbing, but more disturbing still is when any president usurps power by circumventing the legislative process to create new laws by decree. No president can legally do that. Our founders considered such assertions of power to be the essence of tyranny. That’s why Texas and our fellow states stood up and challenged the president’s unconstitutional and illegal actions.
President Obama’s autocratic directives would have had a major impact on every state. They would have placed stresses on our economy, our schools, our public-safety programs — practically every aspect of society. But not only did President Obama leave the states out of the discussion; he circumvented Congress as well, cutting our representatives in Washington out of the process completely. It’s not surprising that Congress has been hesitant to fund DHS after President Obama’s actions, seemingly agreeing to restore funding only after our injunction was in place.
The president may not like that Congress writes our immigration laws, but that doesn’t give him the right to pretend those laws don’t exist. And it doesn’t give him the authority to replace them with ones he made up on his own.
President Obama himself has said numerous times over the past few years that he lacks the authority to do precisely what he is now trying to do. In October 2010, during an interview on immigration, he said, “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.”
Then, last November, at the announcement of his sweeping executive order, he proclaimed, “I just took an action to change the law.”
What had changed since he made his initial assertions? His attitude, perhaps. A Republican takeover of Congress, definitely.
But the law of the United States hasn’t changed. And that’s what makes his actions not only illegal, but unconstitutional.
Consider also the precedent that may be set. Allowing President Obama’s actions to stand sends the message that any president is now the supreme authority in the nation. This would give the president unchecked power to legislate from the Oval Office.
Along with 25 other states, Texas will continue to fight as long as it takes to preserve our American democracy and restore the rule of law.
— Ken Paxton is the attorney general of Texas.
YOUR VOICE WAS HEARD – OBAMA ABANDONS BULLET BAN
This past week, I joined with other colleagues in the House to demand that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) not go forward with a plan to ban bullets used for the AR-15, the most popular sporting rifle in the United States. I simply will not stand for attempts by the Obama administration to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.
Your voice was heard, and your voice mattered. The overwhelming opposition of my constituents to this proposed ban helped me convince colleagues to take a united stand against this constitutional overreach.
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I will continue to be the first line of defense for safeguarding the Constitution and holding the Obama administration in check. We cannot allow the president to circumvent the Constitution and attempt to write laws on his own. I believe I was sent to Congress to defend the Constitution, not rubber stamp its abuse.
I urge you to continue to reach out to my office about the issues that matter most to you. As your voice in Congress, I work for you. Every time I vote, I remind myself that I’m voting on behalf of 700,000 Texans. That’s a privilege I take very seriously.
U.S. Representative for the 4th Congressional District of Texas