CRUZ: Is there something about the left—and I am going to put the media in this category—that is obsessed with sex? ISIS is executing homosexuals—you want to talk about gay rights? This week was a very bad week for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical, theocratic, Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children and that murder homosexuals—that ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic.
A few days ago I read an article by Michael Cantrell with the headline “Cruz delivers epic smackdown to media, says “ISIS is Executing Homosexuals- You want to talk about Gay Rights”. It featured the remark quoted above, and congratulated Sen. Cruz for exposing the hypocrisy of the media:
The media’s obvious hypocrisy on the topic of gay rights is pretty clear to anyone with a brain. If you’re truly concerned about homosexual rights, then why aren’t you calling for an end to the brutal executions taking place in Muslim led countries?
Both Ted Cruz’s remark and the article’s grounds for celebrating it, illustrate the problem with relying on GOP politicians like Ted Cruz to do battle against the general attack now under way to eliminate America’s respect for unalienable right. That is essential to preserving justly limited government in the United States. The attackers are determined to eliminate it precisely because they aim to establish a totalitarian dictatorship of unlimited power. Despite the pretense that Cruz’s remark boldly turned the tables on the interviewer, his effort to change the subject actually suggests that he is afraid to engage them in battle, or else simply fails to appreciate the vital importance of winning it.
Sen. Cruz claims to be a principled advocate of the constitutional liberty of the people of the United States. Given that claim, which should he regard as more threatening to the nation: the fact that ISIS attacks so-called ‘gay rights’ in the Middle East or the fact that redefining marriage without regard to unalienable right attacks the Constitution’s provisions for securing liberty here at home. Those provisions include the freedom of speech (On the excuse of protecting so-called “gay rights” Christian moral views are under steady fire); the free exercise of religion (Obama and Hilary Clinton are demanding that the Biblical understanding of sexual morality be erased); the prohibition against being “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Christian people are losing their business and jobs because they refuse to surrender God’s rule); and the 9th Amendment’s prohibition against using the Constitution’s enumeration of rights to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people, (which includes the unalienable rights derived from fulfilling the obligations and responsibilities of natural family).
Though the article says that he turns the tables on his interviewer, Cruz’s remark actually accepts the notion that protecting so-called “gay rights” against ISIS in the Middle East is of greater importance than protecting both the Constitution’s implementation of respect for unalienable rights, and the logic by which we recognize, and are therefore able to demand respect for them. If Cruz were what he claims to be, he would welcome the opportunity fully to articulate the logic that justifies giving priority to opposing the false notion that specious government fabricated “right” (to gay marriage or anything else) can be allowed to supplant the God-endowed unalienable right government is supposed to secure.
If he eagerly grasped the opportunity to present their case in terms of the Constitution’s provisions and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, Cruz would actually do what he claims he wants to do. He would positively represent Americans who are rightly concerned to prevent the destruction of the moral and institutional foundations of the nation. Instead, his eagerness to change the subject leaves the impression that, since there is no such positive case to be made, he must find some way to deflect the discussion. And since the way he chooses validates the priority of protecting “gay rights” overseas, he tacitly affirms the priority the interlocutor gives to the issue of protecting them here in the U.S.
People complain about the limitations of “soundbite” discussions of the issues. But when an interviewer repeatedly returns to the same subject he is, in effect, offering his interlocutor ample time to develop the subject fully. Someone determined to represent the best case for those he claims to represent would welcome the opportunity to make it. By doing so he would provide his constituents with solid arguments they can use to sway people they know. By doing so he would sway the judgment of people who want to do right by their country.
Of course the present corrupt partisan sham is entirely based on a deeply contemptuous view of the American people. It assumes that they are little better then cunning animals, strictly motivated by fear, material passion, and irrationally held opinions. The partisan sham spawns political consultants who discourage rational persuasion because people conditioned to respond to the goads of passion are more easily deceived and manipulated than people encouraged to exercise reasonable common sense.
This “dumbing down” of the electorate is the counterpart of the degradation of informed and reasonable common sense taking place in the government run schools. Americans are being discouraged from exercising their reason, so that they will be too stupefied to resent and resist the dismantlement of their Constitutional sovereignty and self-government.
Ted Cruz recently voted to expand Obama’s treaty making powers in a way that denigrates the power of elected legislatures at every level of government throughout the United States. This is evidence of a fatal flaw that, by itself, warns true conservatives against supporting his self-promotion for the office of President of the United States. But along with this abandonment of the institutional integrity of constitutional self-government, we must now consider his failure to appreciate and competently represent the priority that ought to be given to preserving unalienable right as the primary and delimiting purpose of government in the United State.
What is it conservatives seek first to conserve if not the foundations of Constitutional liberty? Whatever his rhetoric, Ted Cruz is evidently careless of those foundations. Believe if you like that he stands a chance of “winning”. Would it be a triumph for America’s liberty and creed, or just another triumph of the sham?