Browse By

The Teeny Weeny War Of Ted Cruz

This week, a couple of Americans went to a center that serves people with disabilities where one of them worked, and shot 14 people.

ted cruz war panicIn response, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz admonished the nation that this event shows that, “We are at a time of war.”

A time of war?

In the Revolutionary War, one out of every 20 young men died in the war. 17,000 American soldiers died of disease while marching off to war. 100,000 refugees fled from the 13 colonies.

The Civil War resulted in the death of three quarters of a million Americans.

Over a hundred thousand Americans died during World War I.

Over four hundred thousand Americans died during World War II.

More than fifty thousand Americans died during the Vietnam War.

Now, Ted Cruz notices that a crazy couple in California has killed 14 people, and says that it’s a reminder that America is at war.

If this is the biggest hint we’ve got that there’s a war going on, maybe it isn’t really a war. Maybe we don’t need to send huge amounts of money to military contractor corporations to deal with this. Maybe we don’t have to make this the centerpiece of our foreign policy.

Maybe we can slow down, and instead of listening to politicians like Ted Cruz pump up perceptions that we have no choice but to go off to war, we can sit down and work on mechanisms to spread peace instead.

67 thoughts on “The Teeny Weeny War Of Ted Cruz”

  1. Leroy says:

    Just all a part of the changing game plan of the Republicans in their desperate NEED to cater to the worst 30% of their Party…

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_embrace_of_fascism_is_americas_dirty_little_secret_20151203

    1. Leroy says:

      http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/private_gop_memo_reveals_trump_victory_would_only_mark_20151203

      So Cruz and Rubio and JEB and Huckabee, etcetera, etcetera are being told to EMBRACE the racism, misogynist, fascism of Trump.

  2. Robert Milnes says:

    Wrong, Peckerwood.
    The couple has been found to have radical Islam ties.
    Our problem is that we’ve let 6 million jews who RADICALLY support Israel into our country.
    Somehow they have accumulated widely disparate financial and political power and get it to Israel one way or another.
    And they suppress the third parties.
    That makes America a ZOG that is by definition hostile to Arabs/Islam.
    Israel is not going to let there be peace.

    1. kg1321 says:

      Yes. It’s those Bolshevik (Liberal) Jews that are ruining the country. It’s not the people who actually own the assets who sold American manufacturing to the lowest bidder. It’s not the war mongers who hoodwinked America into attacking a sovereign country in an attempt to re-establish American Hegemony in the world. It’s those “hippy tree huggers” who are at fault.

      Adolph Hitler used the same excuses to promote German National Socialism.

      And if the conservative faction in America continue to have their way, then America is not far off from becoming another Nazi Germany.

      1. Leroy says:

        Applause, applause!!!

  3. Leroy says:

    Like those articles said…. this site has its own version.

  4. ella says:

    Well, just because it was a subject somewhere here, this article on the subject of Christmas came up. Christian decorations are different from living nativities, but this one is banned because it represents a religious theme. The judge said in cannot be shown.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2015/12/04/todd-starnes-federal-judge-bans-schools-live-nativity-show-n2089210?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

    1. Jim Cook says:

      It hasn’t been banned by the community. The public high school just isn’t the appropriate venue for a sectarian Christian religious pageant. That’s why the judge made an entirely appropriate ruling that the sectarian Christian religious pageant should be happening somewhere else in the town — say, at a sectarian Christian religious organization like a church or at some other facility rented by a sectarian Christian religious organization.

      Reading original articles on the subject (your link was third-hand), the sectarian Christian religious pageant had even been including Bible readings at this official public school event. That’s entirely inappropriate for a U.S. public school, and that’s settled law.

      “For its conclusion, though, the show takes a distinctly religious tone. At least until this year, the final twenty minutes of the show featured readings from the Bible of the story of the birth of Jesus, accompanied by multiple musical ensembles playing religious songs aligning with the nativity story, while students dressed as biblical characters stood on stage against the backdrop of a manger and portrayed a live nativity scene.”

      Read here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/12/02/judge-bans-high-school-performing-live-nativity-scene/76676294/

      1. ella says:

        And so once again, a law suit is successful is removing a Christian event from our public schools. Further intimidation against Christianity and the culture once that made up the United States. One more step in removing the stigma of the original builders of the nation being in control of it. “…”U.S. District Judge Jon E. Deguilio granted a preliminary injunction in a federal lawsuit against Concord Community Schools, writing in the order that the show “conveys a message of endorsement of religion, or that a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.””
        (This is your link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/12/02/judge-bans-high-school-performing-live-nativity-scene/76676294/)

    2. Leroy says:

      And next week in American History we will NOT be teaching First Amendment Freedom of Religion (which incorporates freedom from religion) nor Separation of Church and State.

      1. ella says:

        Please give the Constitutional quote which reads “Freedom from religion”

        1. Leroy says:

          If you re-read VERY closely, it never says that phrase is IN the Constitution, but that the CONCEPT of Freedom of Religion was meant by the Founding Fathers (several who were NOT Christian) to include freedom from religion.

          These are found in writings of the Founding Fathers, letters between the Founding Fathers, etcetera.

          I would post links but I don’t feel like doing research and then bothering posting things that you aren’t going to believe anyway.

          It is like the Second Amendment. It doesn’t state ANYWHERE that the Right to own (and bare) firearms is an INDIVIDUAL Right. But that is what the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case. How? By researching what the INTENT of the Amendment was. How? By what the Founding Fathers said about it. In their writings, their letters to each other, their publications, etcetera.

          Which is why I worded it:

          ” (which incorporates freedom from religion) ”

          I assumed that readers were Constitutionally savvy enough to understand those things.

          Many rightwing wingnut sites TRY to butcher that by posting things like “original intent” wherein they dig up what some peripheral actor (generally not a Founding Father or even during that time period) says in their personal interpretation in order to say, “See, here’s what it really means”…. (One example was in quoting the opposing PERSONAL OPINION of a Supreme Court Justice who was appointed by President Madison well after the writing of the Bill of Rights – like 20 years after – and try to claim that was actually the “real” interpretation”, when it didn’t even remotely agree with President Madison’s determinations and Madison was one of the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights).

          FAIL.

          And then there’s the rightwing wingnut sites that try to claim that that section of the First Amendment only applies to what the federal Congress can or cannot do regarding religion.

          They seem to forget the later adoption (by a Super Majority of Congress and the States) of the 14th Amendment.

          Section 1 of this amendment formally defines United States citizenship and also protects various civil rights from being abridged or denied by any state or state actor (that would mean ANY political subdivision of the State such as County, City, Village, School Board, etcetera, etcetera.

          1. ella says:

            The members of the United States Supreme Court are politically appointed and do, in their capacity of interpreting the Constitution, tend to write in what is called their “opinions”. So do we all. The militia was all that had the ‘right’ to bear arms and carry them in a militant manner. People who had to hunt for food and protect themselves get their right to bare arms from freedom to own property – and defend it – and freedom to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The general population was not expected to need to bare arms in heavily populated areas, the law enforcement was supposed to take care of such matters. This was a nation still being developed by the European (mostly) settlers and government. Because of that the explorers had to have protection and since settlers went into the nations of the inhabitants and settled on their land, they had to have protection until the military conquered those nations.

            The founding fathers probably considered things like civil war and invading settlers, and they created an evolving Constitution. But I doubt they considered a lot of what has been “opinionated” by the Supreme Court in the past 70 years. And even though there were writers of the Declaration of Independence who were not exactly Christians, agnostics, they never intended to write out the freedom of religion or the right to abstain from practicing within an organized religion. However, if they had intended a “Freedom From Religion, they would have stated such. To say that is to negate the “Freedom OF Religion”.

          2. J Clifford says:

            ‘However, if they had intended a “Freedom From Religion, they would have stated such. To say that is to negate the “Freedom OF Religion”.’

            Ella, it’s like this: Freedom Of Religion is a big category, which includes Freedom To Practice Christianity, Freedom To Practice Islam, Freedom To Practice Buddhism, Freedom To Practice Paganism, and so on, but also includes Freedom From Religion.

            So, when the writers of the Constitution wrote about that big category, they didn’t need to mention every specific example within it.

            If you don’t believe that, then explain why you should be allowed to be a Christian. After all, the Constitution never specifically names “Freedom to be Christian,” right? If they had intended people to have the freedom to be Christian, they would have written that down, right?

          3. ella says:

            Actually, Freedom of religion covers any and all religions – including the freedom from practicing within an organized religion. As all who live do something religiously, that point is moot. A Freedom from religion clause was not necessary, nor is it called for. Obviously, if you do not practice within an organized religion, then you have the private/personal right to do without it. Many do. That does not automatically give those who do not wish to practice any organized religion the Right to disassemble the rights and practices of those who Do practice within an organized religion. That is what is systematically being done within the public systems. Separation of State and Government, meant that the Government had to separate the powers of State from the Powers of religion. Not that the State had the right to interfere in religious practices. I am aware of the legislation the Supreme Court has handed down.

            In your view do you hold that a church (of any denomination or religious sect) has no right to offer religious programs within their school venues? Do private schools have the right, still, to hold religious programs within their venues? Now that public schools have had the right of Christmas programs removed, I wonder how much further that will carry.

          4. J Clifford says:

            Also, Leroy, it logically follows that if a nation is to have freedom of religion, they have to have freedom from religion. Freedom from religion is the freedom to not participate in any religion at all. If the government (from federal down to state and local, including government schools) has the power to force people to participate in religious worship, that’s not freedom of religion.

            Your freedom of religion, Ella, involves your freedom to NOT obey other people’s religions. If Satanism became the most popular religion in the country, and the government had the power to compel you to participate in Satanic rituals, including forcing your child to sing Satanic songs at your local elementary school and Satanic sacrifices to open up every city council meeting, would you feel that you were being given freedom of religion?

          5. ella says:

            Absolutely no one has ever forced another person to practice religious observances that they themselves were not willing to do. The complaint began over an Atheist father who was incensed because his daughter had to spend 60 seconds listening to a prayer in the morning before classes began. His lawsuit precipitated like a thunderstorm to forward his personal beliefs. Was that right?

          6. Leroy says:

            Every time a government agency of ANY type (school board, city, village, country, etcetera) puts up a “Christian Manger Scene” on taxpayer money and taxpayer time and taxpayer property, it is absolutely favoring one specific religion over ALL others (even Judaism).

            And presents government pressure on that they should follow this religion or else!

            So just another fundamentalist Christian lie.

          7. ella says:

            Leroy you are quite talented at distorting the truth to suit your purposes. Still reminds me of Hillary. No one needs to come to a Christmas pageant that is not of a mind to do so. It is not put on the evangelize, but for both entertainment and to remind people of the history of their faith. As if said by the Muslims, absolutely no Muslim would speak against those who represent the Muslim religion for their actions. What do Christians do? So, because you are not a Christian, does that give you the right to speak against it? Yes it does, but not as though you are a Christian speaking among Christians. It is like being an American and speaking against American traditions and values. The rest of the world sees that, and rightly, as stupidity.

          8. Leroy says:

            J. Clifford,

            Thank for the repeat, but that is exactly what I said.

            What else would Freedom FROM Religion mean?

          9. Leroy says:

            Sorry Ella, I distorted nothing.

            Just because you do not understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, doesn’t mean that I am distorting the truth… it means that you are failing to grasp it, that intellectually you can not understand it and that there is a huge LEGAL difference between allowed celebrations of ANY religion on private properties, but NONE allowed of even the majority religion on PUBLIC PROPERTY or with PUBLIC FUNDING or by a PUBLIC AGENCY.

            That is the LAW.

            Not my opinion.

            Not my interpretation.

            Not my distortion.

            But the Law.

            Look, J Clifford C has addressed this point to you TWICE before I did… And quite strongly also – and making the same points that I have.

            Go argue with him (unless you are fearful – like those Samuel Adams talks about – of arguing with moderators and site owners)!

            You have made your point.

            You are incapable of or unwilling to understand.

            I have no desire to debate a stone wall.

          10. ella says:

            Here is another example of Freedom from Religion: https://thehornnews.com/you-wont-believe-this-atheist-attack-on-christmas/

            So when are we going to here from the Freedom FOR Religion advocates?

          11. ella says:

            Okay, I meant ‘hear’

          12. Leroy says:

            I doubt if you WILL hear from them as neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contains a “Freedom for Religion” clause.

            And you are clearly clueless about the workings of the Constitutional mechanisms and processes.

            You should also post over at the website http://www.truthdig.com/

            They would love you over there.

          13. ella says:

            Really, I studied Constitutional law briefly once. What I disagree with is the Supreme Court and their decision making processes. OR at least some of them. They were not intended to be politically motivated, as rendered by the Constitution, Leroy. They were supposed to be totally neutral and only interpret the Constitution. You and others, tend to confuse the Constitution with the decisions that are rendered by opinionated and politically motivated men and women. That is why Presidential candidates break their necks to get into the White House, so they can put their personal political choices into the high court. Socialist (Obama, Clinton(s)), Capitalists (Reagan, Trump) Those ‘justices’ will vote in a manner that is leaning toward their particular ideology. So, do not confuse my comments as having a difference with the Constitution, but with the decisions rendered – politically.

          14. Leroy says:

            It must have been VERY briefly. In fact, from your demonstrated knowledge of its workings, I’d have to say that was buckshot.

            From the very first Supreme Court to the current one, there have been Courts where some of the Justices were “opinionated” and “politicized”, some Courts where many of them were, and some Courts where ALL the Justices were (maybe you should have taken some American Government and American History classes also).

            Today’s Supreme Court isn’t even the worst (though it IS in the top twenty worst ones – since it turned rightwing in the early 2000s). And that is NOT my opinion:

            http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html

            In fact, with your absolute lack of understanding, I find your claim simply unsustainable.

          15. Leroy says:

            Worst five Supreme Court Justices (again, not my opinion):

            http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/24/3636905/five-worst-supreme-court-justices-american-history-ranked/

            Only one a current member of the Court.

            Just shows my point about opinionated and politicized Justices from the start!

          16. Leroy says:

            The 16 worst Supreme Court decisions since 1960 as based on not my opinion, but the opinion of 34 legal scholars established by Time magazine:

            http://time.com/4056051/worst-supreme-court-decisions/

            (Note how often Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United Decisions come up… And the Heller case, a good decision, IMO, not mentioned once… But then as a Constitutional Law scholar I’m sure you are very familiar with all of these).

          17. Leroy says:

            Even Senator Bernie Sanders agrees with Citizens United being one of the worst decisions ever.

            http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/sen-bernie-sanders-citizens-united-is-one-of-the-worst-supreme-court-decisions-ever-463722051889

          18. Leroy says:

            But in CLOSING….

            This would be my final position in your denigration of the United States Supreme Court (who I personally often disagree with – but in those cases I believe that if it is a big of enough concern, then a Super Majority of “We, the People” should change that part of the Constitution or its Amendments):

            http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/07/06/is-the-supreme-court-too-powerful/the-supreme-court-is-a-check-on-big-government-protection-for-minorities

  5. ella says:

    As long as I am allowed to say my personal prayers, and practice my religion in the manner which I choose, I would not care one way or the other. If I, of my own will, went to another country that practiced in such a manner, that would be my choice. I am comfortable with how I view the subject. It is troubling that their are others which are not, in a nation which historically practices one religion predominantly. Especially considering that people at one time clamored to come to this nation that proudly announced it was Christian to the world. They were not concerned with the national religion when they came here looking for a decent living, friendly neighborhoods, proper educations, the rule of law to protect them from the type of crime, violence and poverty that they ran from.

  6. Leroy says:

    I find it more troubling that there are people over here who don’t understand our very first section of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution!

    Of course that just described EVERY Republican presidential candidate!

  7. Leroy says:

    Who said these various factual statements about Church and State and about being a Christian nation?

    There are hints provided….

    1. Leroy says:

      http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/102684a.htm

      Fuller extent of this amazing quote from Reagan (in one of his more lucid moments):

      ” …We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

      At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral…

      And there’s something else. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, for anti-Semitism, or for bigotry of any kind — none. In Dallas, we acted on this conviction. We passed a resolution concerning anti-Semitism and disassociating the Republican Party from all people and groups who practice bigotry in any form….

      We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils…. ”

      – Ronald Reagan

      “Remarks to Members of the Congregation of Temple Hillel and Jewish Community Leaders in Valley Stream, New York” – October 26, 1984

      1. Leroy says:

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/reaganquote.jpg

        Full quote:

        ” …We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

        At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral…

        And there’s something else. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, for anti-Semitism, or for bigotry of any kind — none. In Dallas, we acted on this conviction. We passed a resolution concerning anti-Semitism and disassociating the Republican Party from all people and groups who practice bigotry in any form….

        We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils…. ”

        Ronald Reagan

        “Remarks to Members of the Congregation of Temple Hillel and Jewish Community Leaders in Valley Stream, New York” – October 26, 1984

    1. Leroy says:

      Although we now know that in his private writings and in his candid communications with his inner circle Adolf Hitler expressed his true thoughts and feelings of contempt for his Catholic Church, we also know that he was a shrewd politician who knew how to manipulate the churchmen of both of the major German faiths to his advantage, by convincing them at the time that he was a champion, rather than an opponent, of Christianity. Imagine that, Hitler was a two-faced politician!

      According to an article published in the French magazine, Paris Soir, Aug. 5, 1939, William Patrick Hitler heard his uncle, Adolf Hitler, in fact say : “People must not know who I am. They must not know what I came from.”
      Hitler may well have been aware of what the great Greek philosopher had said on this subject 22 centuries earlier
      “A tyrant needs to put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.” – Aristotle

      Here is the overwhelming evidence that – despite what he may have believed in his heart of hearts – Adolf Hitler wanted to be viewed by his Christian countrymen and their clergy as a “man of God”, whom they should therefore follow and obey because their God had chosen him to lead a Christian nation into a more perfect state, purified of the demonic influence of Jews, liberals, atheists and “Bolsheviks”.

      1. Leroy says:

        http://www.catholicarrogance.org/+Artwork/Catholic_liberalism/NaziSupportofChristianity.JPG

        The Holocaust museum attributes the following famous words to the German Protestant pastor Martin Niemoller (this being the REAL version)

        “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

        “Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.

        “Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

        “Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

        There is no exact evidence as far as I could find that Martin Niemoller actually authored these words. But that is the best known original version and what is posted at the Jewish Holocaust Museum….

        But one thing is sure, and that is the inauthenticity of the version recorded in the Congressional Record, for October 14, 1968, on page 31,636, where “they” (meaning the Nazis) is replaced with “Hitler” and “communists” is replaced with “Catholics” and “me” is replaced with “me and the Protestant church”.”

        (This – below – being the FICTIONAL version entered into the Congressional Record by a rightwing legislator)

        “When Hitler attacked the Jews, I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.

        And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.

        And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.

        Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church and there was nobody left to be concerned.”

        How dishonest this version is, when the truth of the matter is that the “communists” were clearly one of the principal targets of the Nazis, while the Catholics and Protestants were not so much the victims of the Holocaust as the perpetrators of it.

  8. Leroy says:

    Religion according to fundamentalist rightwing Christians and fanatical fundamentalist Muslims:

    http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/republican-taliban.jpg

    1. Leroy says:

      Religion in the United States according to rightwing wingnuts (and their whines about persecution):

      http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/oppression.gif

    2. Leroy says:

      Religious (or political or Constitutional) “discussions” with Ella:

      http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/religion1.jpg

  9. Leroy says:

    My bottom line:

    http://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/69/5/672007048-ben_franklin_quote_any_society_that_will_give_poster-r07cc594fe018456b85e13133f59f0d6a_oxm_8byvr_324.jpg

    Or as Samuel Adams said, “Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

  10. ella says:

    I rest my case, Leroy, you have made it for me.

    1. Leroy says:

      Unfortunately, by not reading what those Founding Fathers truly said about Religion, Christianity, and Separation of Church and State (in the numerous links provided, those are ACTUAL quotes) and only reading the bottom quote, you think that you picked up the message… when you couldn’t be more than wrong.

      Like with your attempted explanation of Supreme Court “opinions” with your retroactive “explanation”, you simply prove how ridiculous your OPINIONS and interpretations are.

      My numerous links totally DISPROVED your point.

      And, sadly, as sad as your stammering around about today’s Supreme Court being “opinionated” and “politicized” (hint: many and sometimes all Justices on every Court since Day One have been, that’s nothing new), in making such comments you only dig your hole of ignorance deeper.

      I am in fact disgusted that you somehow think that those quotes make your case on those points.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!