[UPDATE: Apparently, while I was writing this article, David Shedlock had already caved to the heat his article had generated, and was writing an apology! In typical Republican fashion he put his head down, put his tail between his legs, and admitted to being wrong even though he wasn’t. Now he owes Mike Huckabee, the American people, and God an apology. Cruz’s “record” of pro-life legislation was never in question. But his “position” on state’s rights undermines that legislation, and so is in practice a “pro-abortion” position. That is the truth. There will be no retreat from what I have written in this article.]
Dear Editor Hart,
I read your article, Is Ted Cruz Being Inconsistent on Marriage? I Don’t Think So. I also read David Shedlock’s article, Everybody’s Wrong: Cruz & Huckabee Are on Opposite Sides of the Ball.” Then I read your article in response, Clarifying Ted Cruz’s Pro-Life Record. Too much is at stake not to respond.
The foundational issue is, Will American Christians obey God’s word in the voting booth this time, or will they once again forget God. It is obvious to me that America has been driven off a cliff morally, economically, and militarily. We are now plunging to the bottom, and only God can save us from crashing into total destruction. No politician can save us. We had better humble ourselves before God before it is too late.
Being very impressed with Cruz’s courage to oppose the RINOs in Congress, I started out this campaign cycle supporting Cruz, with both words and money. But the more I learned about his policies, the more alarmed I became. Finally, it became obvious to me that Cruz’s position on the vital moral issues dividing the US today is both deceptive and dangerous.
I hope it was not intentional, but your article in response to Shedlock’s is also deceptive. You accused Shedlock of saying something he didn’t say, then proved that what he didn’t actually say is wrong. Please note carefully that Shedlock’s article did not criticise Cruz’s “record,” but only his “position.” Shedlock very correctly pointed out that Cruz is actually a libertarian, not a social conservative; and that, just like Ron Paul, Cruz’s “position” will not stop abortions. Here is what Shedlock actually said:
The ‘state’s rights position‘ is totally unworkable on marriage, for previous laws have always required that states accept every other state’s standards. The Cruz position is actually a step backwards for the pro-life movement, as well. Morally, abortion is a national sin. Cruz can say he has done all he can to stop abortion. But Ron Paul’s pro-abortion supporters knew that his position would not stop abortions at all. He could brag all he wanted about proposing laws that would outlaw abortion nationally, but he knew they would never see the light of day.
That is a completely true statement. Shedlock said, “He,” that is Ron Paul, “could brag all he wanted about proposing laws that would outlaw abortion nationally [his “record”], but he knew they would never see the light of day.” The exact same thing is true about Cruz. His “position” undermines his good “record.”
Now, back to your first article about Cruz being consistent on marriage. From the research I have done, it seems to be true that Cruz has consistently stated that his policy on marriage is that “marriage is a question for the states.” That is exactly why he is a dangerous man whom I not only cannot support, but must, and will, oppose for the sake of my children and grandchildren. As the family goes, so goes the nation. Sodomy destroys the family. No nation has ever survived sodomy. And Cruz’s policy on marriage will allow the sodomite movement to prevail and grow in state after state until our country is totally corrupt: “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened” (1 Cor. 5:6).
But, and this is very important, if Cruz is consistent in saying that marriage is an issue for the states to decide, how then can he honestly say that abortion is not? Cruz says that issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution must be settled by the states. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, so if Cruz is going to be consistent, he will leave abortion to be decided by the states also. That position will not stop abortions, and so in practice is equivalent to a pro-choice position, which is exactly what Shedlock pointed out.
Also, if Cruz is truly a pure Constitutionalist as he claims, is he being consistent in even running for president? As many conservatives have already pointed out, it is highly questionable that Cruz is Constitutionally qualified for the office of president; some say that it is certain that Cruz is not qualified. Cruz says the voters will decide if he is qualified or not. I don’t think so. Do a web search. Liberals are already planning to challenge his qualifications all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary should he win the general election. What do you think our liberal majority Supreme Court will decide? And once the Supreme Court has declared Cruz unqualified, what are you going to do then?
The IRS is another issue in which Cruz is being deceptive. He claims he will do away with the IRS, but actually all he is planning to do is impose a flat tax on “income.” That will not do away with the IRS, but will instead assure that the IRS—that criminal agency that so hates churches and other conservative organizations—lives on to continue to oppose and oppress us. Cruz could have, and should have, chosen to advocate the FairTax, which is a flat tax on “consumption” that would really and truly do away with the IRS, but he didn’t. Why is that? Could it be because the super-rich donors supporting him don’t want the unfair advantage the IRS gives them over small businesses to be eliminated? The FairTax already has 80 co-sponsors in Congress (last time I checked), so it’s not like it would be an impossible bill to pass given leadership from a conservative president.
True conservatives believe that the US Constitution was founded upon—and is subordinate to—the Christian Bible. Liberals and libertarians subvert the Constitution by rejecting the Constitution’s Bible foundation. The libertarians’ claim that the Constitution leaves vital moral issues (such as slavery, marriage and abortion) up to each state to decide for itself is bogus and wicked. God alone decides such things—not the states. And God has permanently recorded his decisions in the Bible, and they will never change. Government—state or federal—cannot through legislation change sin into righteousness or licentiousness into freedom. Government can only obey or disobey God, and to disobey is fatal. Remember this warning: “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psalms 9:17). The God of the Bible “giveth thee power to get wealth…And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish” (Deut. 8:18-19).
The evangelical leaders who have endorsed Cruz have made a libertarian decision, not a conservative one: a carnal decision, not a spiritual, Bible-based one. Endorsing a libertarian over a proven conservative based on the libertarian’s fund-raising expertise, and rank in liberal-controlled polls, is stupid, foolish, and shameful. They have let the liberal media make their choice for them. That is unbelievably dumb. They should repent immediately, before the damage they are causing to their reputations is irreparable. Being a libertarian, Cruz cannot unite the conservative base, as they claim, but is dividing it. Historically, libertarians have always claimed to be conservative, because they know that no Bible-believing Christian will knowingly vote for a libertarian.
John Quincy Adams gave good advise: “Always vote on principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
I think you owe Shedlock an apology, and that you should also reconsider your support of Cruz. We should hold all writers to account, but we shouldn’t distort a writer’s words in order to lift up our candidate of choice. Remember that your children and grandchildren also are going to be affected by this election.
L.A. Turk, editor