Ted Cruz for President

I haven’t said much (publicly) about the 2016 U.S. presidential race, and I probably won’t say much more about it after this article, as I want to focus on more fundamental philosophic issues. But I’d like to say a few words about why I unequivocally support Ted Cruz for president and why I think all liberty-loving Americans should as well.

Although not all of Cruz’s ideas are grounded in reality (e.g., he believes rights come from “God”), and although some of them are dangerously false (e.g., he believes a fetus has rights), Cruz regards ideas as important, and he has a body of principles that guide his thinking on political matters. Chief among these is his recognition of the fact that the U.S. Constitution is, as he puts it, “the supreme law of the land” and that the job of the president is to uphold and enforce it. “I will defend the Constitution—all of it,” promises Cruz.

Of course, I and other lovers of liberty take issue with Cruz about what the Constitution means in certain areas and about how best to enforce it. But many of Cruz’s ideas in this regard are substantially if not entirely good. Here are some representative instances. (All quotations are Cruz’s own words unless otherwise noted.)

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the lynchpin of a free society. With it, people can work peacefully to secure and maintain freedom; without it, they can’t.

Ted Cruz recognizes the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of speech, and he vows to uphold the First Amendment as a fundamental law of the land. Does he support this right fully and consistently? No. Among other inconsistencies in this area, he supports certain “anti-obscenity” laws. But Cruz’s recognition of the existence and importance of the right to freedom of speech means that when he faces questions about the matter, he will approach them with the aim of understanding how this principle applies in the given context. He will not dismiss the principle as irrelevant or question whether it exists.

All of the other viable candidates in the running for the presidency have demonstrated utter disregard for the right to freedom of speech. And, because this right is the linchpin of a free society, this difference alone disqualifies them and puts Cruz in first place.

Foreign Policy

U.S. foreign policy has been atrocious for many decades, and Americans have paid horrifically for the fact. In just the past fifteen years, Islamic jihadists have murdered thousands of Americans on U.S. soil. During that same period, many thousands more Americans have been killed or maimed abroad while following altruistically driven orders to refrain from using their full capabilities against the jihadists—whom Presidents Bush and Obama have refused even to name, let alone to eliminate.

The causes of this problem run deep into philosophy, but one of the major causes at the political level is that every administration in recent decades has embraced the wrong purpose of U.S. foreign policy.

It appears that a Cruz administration would substantially correct this deadly error.

Cruz sees the proper purpose of U.S. foreign policy as what it is: to protect the lives and rights of Americans. In his words, we need “an America first foreign policy”—a policy under which we “judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America.” Accordingly, Cruz emphatically opposes so-called “nation building” or efforts to “transform foreign countries into democratic utopias,” such as “trying to turn Iraq into Switzerland.” Instead, says Cruz, “it is the job of our military to protect this country, to hunt down and kill jihadists who would murder us.” If and when the United States needs to use force to defend Americans from aggressors, says Cruz, “We should use overwhelming force, kill the enemy, and then get the heck out.” To which I say: Amen.

As for the rules of engagement that sacrifice U.S. soldiers on the alter of altruism, Cruz sees them as morally wrong—and says so. As he puts it, “What we are doing to our sons and daughters, it is immoral. We are sending them to fight with their arms tied behind their back. They cannot defend themselves, and it is wrong.”

Cruz holds that the U.S. military should be permitted to operate at full capacity and to do what needs to be done. Thus he vows to “carpet bomb” Islamic State (aka ISIS) into oblivion and to make “sand glow” if that’s what it takes to end the threat posed by jihadists and their supporters. In other words, Cruz unabashedly puts total war and nuclear weapons on the table. Needless to say, no other candidate does so.

Cruz acknowledges that the Islamic theocracy in Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism against America and, indeed, that “Iran has declared war on us.” And he promises that if he is elected president, “under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons,” adding, “if the ayatollah doesn’t understand that, we may have to help introduce him to his seventy-two virgins.”

That is how a U.S. president should speak. He should name our enemies, acknowledge that they have attacked us, mock them, and make clear that the United States has the means and the will to convert them to dust.

Cruz also promises, “If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.” And he says directly to the Iranian regime: “Either you will shut down your nuclear program, or we will shut it down for you.” Again, this is how the commander in chief of the U.S military should speak. He should be authoritative, articulate, and resolute. And, of the candidates running for the presidency, only Cruz exhibits these qualities.

In regard to Israel, Cruz recognizes this tiny, productive, rights-respecting state as America’s number one ally in the war against jihadists, and he promises that, under his administration, “America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel.” Our alliance with Israel, says Cruz, is “a strategic bedrock for the United States.”

America’s security is significantly enhanced by a strong Israel. Israel has been, is, and always will be the Middle East bulwark in defense of the West. Our American-Israeli alliance is something to celebrate. . . . [My] administration will on day one recognize Jerusalem as the eternal, undivided capital of Israel; and the U.S. embassy will be moved to Israel’s capital city. [We will] support Israel’s regional qualitative military edge and make sure that, especially in light of the worsening security climate caused by Iran and ISIS, Israel has everything it needs to defend itself.

No other candidate stands unapologetically with Israel, much less calls our alliance with the Israelis something to celebrate. Once again, Cruz stands alone.

Finally, Cruz acknowledges commonsense facts such as that the United States should stop accepting refugees from “countries with a significant al-Qaeda or ISIS presence” and that we should “empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” (By “radicalized” Cruz means: likely to generate homegrown jihadists.) Of course, such ideas are not “politically correct”; rather, they are morally correct. And, of the candidates running for president, only Cruz advocates them.

Would a President Cruz follow through on all of these ideas? Maybe. Maybe not. But he has advocated these ideas and made these promises during his campaign; thus, if he is elected he will have a mandate to uphold them. And, to severely understate the case, no other candidate’s positions, ideas, or promises regarding foreign policy come even remotely close to being as good as his.

In regard to foreign policy, Cruz is the clear-cut choice for this lover of liberty.

Taxing, Spending, and Shackling Americans

On the domestic front, Cruz offers a similarly rational set of ideas.

The U.S. government has violated the rights of Americans in myriad ways for many decades. Through its mind-thwarting regulations and draconian taxation the government has destroyed countless dreams, ruined countless businesses, and throttled the U.S. economy in countless ways. Cruz, of course, has no magic bullet, nor does he have all the answers. But he does have some seriously good ideas about how to begin moving America back in the direction of being a rights-respecting, productive, economic powerhouse.

Cruz aims to free Americans of a substantial number of rights-violating policies and departments. His proposals include abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and establishing a simplified tax code with a 10 percent flat tax for individuals, and a 16 percent flat tax for businesses. Granted, this proposal entails serious complications because all taxation violates rights and because replacing the existing tax code with a flat tax will disproportionately harm some individuals and businesses in the short term. But eliminating the IRS and simplifying the tax code is an unmitigatedly good goal, in that (a) it would help to clarify what the government is doing in this area and how much it is taking from whom—and (b) it would free Americans from having to spend obscene amounts of time and money preparing their taxes every year. And, of course, no other viable candidate has proposed anything of the sort.

In regard to other agencies that violate rights, ruin lives, and sap the economy, Cruz aims to eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development. Toward this end, he promises, “I will press Congress relentlessly. And I will appoint heads of each of those agencies whose central charge will be to lead the effort to wind them down.” This is huge. Eliminating the Department of Education alone would substantially improve the lives of Americans by orders of magnitude. And no other candidate in the running would even consider such a proposal, let alone make it a major part of his campaign platform.

Cruz further aims to cut at least twenty-five other federal agencies, bureaus, commissions, and programs—including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And, of course, Cruz promises to do everything he can to encourage Congress to “repeal every single word of Obamacare.”

All of this is good—and only Cruz embraces or advocates any of it.

Calling Out Dishonest Politicians

Dishonesty in politics is not merely rampant; it is a fundamental cause of all other political problems. And Cruz is already doing something about it.

Cruz demands honesty from politicians, and he openly calls out anyone—including fellow Republicans—for lying if and when they lie. For instance, in October 2015, during hearings regarding the $80 billion budget proposal, Cruz called out those who were being dishonest about the nature and meaning of the plan in question. “We’ll spend now for a promise that ten years hence we’ll magically cut spending,” said Cruz, summarizing the deal. “Nobody in this chamber believes that. Nobody in the House of Representatives believes that. No member of the press believes that. Everyone understands this is a lie. It is an agreed-to lie by everyone.” And Cruz showed, using actual data and simple graphs, that it obviously was a lie. (See the video here.)

Such honesty and forthrightness is almost unheard of in a politician today. No wonder so many politicians dislike Cruz. He cramps their dishonest style.

The Federal Reserve, Money, and Banking

Cruz also shines on a number of subjects relating to the Federal Reserve, money, and banking. In regard to the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, for instance, Cruz acknowledges, “The Fed’s policy destabilizing our money contributed powerfully both to the bubble and collapse.” In regard to monetary policy, he calls for returning to a gold standard or, as he puts it, “keeping our money tied to a stable level of gold.” And, in regard to bank regulations, he calls for repealing the Dodd-Frank Act, which, he observes, has “killed hundreds and even thousands of small financial institutions.”

No other candidate acknowledges such facts or advocates such reforms.

Corporate Welfare and Subsidies

Cruz recognizes that the government should not be in the business of bailing out or propping up businesses—including big businesses—and he takes a principled stand on such matters.

For instance, during the Fox Business Network debate between the GOP candidates, in answer to the question “Would you bail out the big banks in a financial crisis?”—a question all the other candidates had dodged—Cruz said “Absolutely not.” When pressed and asked whether he truly would let banks the size of Bank of America fail if they were on the brink, Cruz said, “Let me be clear. I would not bail them out.”

Similarly, when Cruz was asked during a Texas Senate Republican runoff debate whether the government should have bailed out General Motors, he replied:

Of course we shouldn’t have . . . I don’t support bailouts, period. I don’t support the bailout of the auto companies. I don’t support the bailout of the banks. Government shouldn’t be in the business of spending taxpayer money to help private corporations. The role of government is to protect our rights, to protect our national security, to ensure rule of law and to stay out of the way and let entrepreneurs create jobs.

On the same principle, Cruz opposes ethanol subsidies and campaigned accordingly in Iowa—where he then won the Iowa caucus. He also opposes oil subsidies and campaigned accordingly in Texas—where he proceeded to win that primary.

Taking such stands and achieving such wins shows that being rationally principled works. And, of the candidates running for president, only Cruz does it.

Appreciation for Ayn Rand’s Ideas

Cruz is a fan of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, and his appreciation for Rand’s work is no small matter. Of course, Cruz is not an Objectivist and doesn’t pretend to be. But he sees great value in Ayn Rand’s ideas. He sees Rand’s ideas as both principled and practical. This is why he brings them up in regard to Obamacare and other real-world problems of the day. And it is why he has mentioned Rand’s work not once but twice on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

In September 2013, Senator Cruz read excerpts from Atlas Shrugged during a speech in which he called for defunding Obamacare on the grounds that the law is contrary to liberty, morality, and the American way of life. His reading from Atlas began as follows:

We’re a nation that was founded on liberty. Always defend liberty. You know you really can’t go wrong with that as a motto. In the interest of that, I’d like to share a few excerpts from one of my favorite books, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

Now let me encourage any of you who have not read Atlas Shrugged to go tomorrow, buy Atlas Shrugged, and read it. What’s interesting is in the last three years my understanding is that sales of Atlas Shrugged have exploded, because we are living in the days [anticipated by] Ayn Rand . . .

Among the excerpts Cruz then proceeded to read is the section on productivity from Galt’s speech, including this:

Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live—that productive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values—that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others—that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human—that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind’s full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay—that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live—that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road—that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up—that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.

Cruz also read the passage in which Dagny Taggart poses the question, “What is morality?”—and receives the answer, “Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.” After pausing to let that sink in, Cruz said:

That’s counsel that the United States Senate should listen to. That’s counsel that I would encourage every Democratic senator who feels the urge of party loyalty to [listen to] . . . I would encourage my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle: As difficult as it is to cross one’s Party leaders, I say, with perhaps a little familiarity of the consequences of so doing, that it’s survivable—and that ultimately it is liberating.

(See the video here.)

Two years later, in October 2015, Cruz again mentioned Atlas on the Senate floor, this time in connection with how the government’s massive spending in practically every sector of the economy effectively forces businessmen to lobby legislators for special favors. As he put it: “Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged about how productive members of society, business owners, would be forced to go to parasitical politicians (although some might suggest that’s a redundant phrase) on bended knee, begging for special dispensations.”

Imagine the possibility of a U.S. president speaking from the Oval Office, “I’d like to share a few excerpts from one of my favorite books, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand . . .” and encouraging Americans, “go tomorrow, buy Atlas Shrugged, and read it.”

In other words, imagine President Ted Cruz.

There is more to like about Cruz, but the foregoing is sufficient to show that he is remarkably good in several ways.

Cruz also has significant flaws, and they are worth mentioning.

In large part because he embraces Christianity, Cruz is inconsistent in his defense of rights, and his inconsistencies here are not trivial. Among other serious negatives: He opposes a woman’s right to seek an abortion because he believes a fetus has rights as granted by God at conception. He opposes the rights of Americans to hire rights-respecting foreigners who want to work for U.S.-based companies (via his proposed immigration policy). And he claims a county clerk (Kim Davis) had a right to refuse to do the government job she was hired to do and is paid by taxpayers to do—a job that required her to issue marriage licenses for gay couples—and nevertheless to remain employed by the government.

Cruz is a Christian who takes his religion (semi) seriously. And I certainly understand why people of reason distrust a politician who believes there is “a guy in the sky” to whom we owe faith and obedience. All manner of irrational and life-throttling ideas can follow (and have followed) from that fantasy.

But Ted Cruz is not a theocrat. In the realm of politics, he recognizes that the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over his religion. As he puts it:

My faith is an integral part of who I am. I’m a Christian, and I’m not embarrassed to say that. I’m not going to hide that and treat it like something you can’t admit publicly. . . .

But I also think that those in politics have an obligation not to wear their faith on their sleeve. There have been far too many politicians who run around behaving like they’re holier than thou. My attitude as a voter, when some politician stands up and says “I’m running because God told me to run” [a veiled reference to Marco Rubio], my reaction is “Great, when God tells me to vote for you we’ll be on the same page.”

I’m not asking for your vote because of my personal faith. . . . I’m asking you to vote for me because I’ve spent a lifetime fighting to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights, fighting to defend the American free enterprise system. And we need a leader who will stand up every day and protect the rights of everyone, whether they’re Christians or Jews or Muslims or anyone else. The Bill of Rights protects all Americans. It protects atheists. That’s the beauty of the Bill of Rights. . . . The Constitution and the Bill of Rights [embody] a unifying principle that can bring us together across faiths, across races, across ethnicities—and we need to come together behind the unifying principles that built America.

Cruz is far from flawless. But he is by far the best viable candidate running for president today.

We don’t get to dream up a flawless candidate and make him real. We have to choose among the actual alternatives, or enter a protest vote, or choose not to vote. Those are our only alternatives.

Given the foregoing facts, Cruz is the clear-cut best choice for America.

If you agree, share this article with everyone you think might appreciate it. And support Cruz in any way you selfishly can. You can contribute to his campaign fund here.


Return to Top

Comments submitted to TOS are moderated and checked periodically. Commenters must use their real names, and comments may not exceed 400 words. For a comment to be approved, it must be civil, substantive, and on topic. Ad hominem attacks, arguments from intimidation, misrepresentations, unsubstantiated accusations, baseless assertions, and comments that ignore relevant points made in the article are not permitted. Comments that violate these rules will not be approved. Thank you for helping us to keep the discussion intellectually profitable.

42 Responses to Ted Cruz for President

  1. gclief@yahoo.com'
    Detfan1 April 2, 2016 at 10:07 am #

    I stopped reading when I learned you were an atheist, and discounted Ted Cruz for his strong faith God, and Jesus Christ our Savior. That means I missed reading most of your missive. I’m sure it was a good article, but I won’t be sharing it with anyone. I pray you find His Truth.

    • dave.2k.xiii@gmail.com'
      dave1305 April 2, 2016 at 10:56 am #

      Rights come from being born, whether or not your interpretation of your G-d approves. If your G-d ends up not existing, would your rights go away too?

      • tita7308@gmail.com'
        Martha Cortez April 5, 2016 at 9:55 am #

        In essence, that’s what Ted Cruz is referring to. It’s not something man gives you. You don’t have to believe in God to have rights.

    • derron@windstream.net'
      MoR April 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm #

      While you’re praying, we’ll be waiting until you learn The Truth.

    • john@stephens.email'
      John April 4, 2016 at 1:06 am #

      If you had bothered to read it you would have seen that he *didn’t* discount Cruz for that or any other reason, and indeed endorsed him despite that, which is what a rational person would do.

    • fred@thepegasus.us'
      Fredrick Rehders April 7, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

      Detfan1: You will find it difficult to learn if you close your mind to reasonably presented information. I am only suggesting that you consider a different point of view, as even scholars and scientists are willing the expand their knowledge by considering new or differing opinions. Craig Biddle’s writing is well worth the read, even if your faith won’t permit you to accept every word or phrase. Ayn Rand’s books contain tons of well delivered information on morality. She wrote novels, plays and pure philosophical works, primarily on rational self-interest, as opposed to altruistic behavior. The key word in the previous sentence is RATIONAL! Self interest can best be described as a pre-determined goal and not to be confused with “greed”.

  2. yonderwings@gmail.com'
    Rodney Rawlings April 2, 2016 at 10:26 am #

    My thoughts exactly on all points. It is crystal-clear that Ted Cruz is an absolutely standout candidate. And think: Would someone who doesn’t really believe what he says dare to say these sorts of things in a presidential campaign?

    • infidelproudinfidel@yahoo.com'
      bendix20 April 27, 2016 at 5:34 pm #

      Hillary does, she doesn’t believe a thing she is saying.

  3. mjneibel@comcast.net'
    Mike N April 2, 2016 at 11:23 am #

    Great article. Defending the right to free speech will have the most important short term benefit. Shutting down the Dept of Education, the most important long term benefit.

  4. shepard_john@sbcglobal.net'
    John Shepard April 2, 2016 at 11:29 am #

    He has also said: “I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth. I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in this country that feel exactly the same way. To God be the glory.”

    So, a question is: What does it mean to be a Christian first, American second? As well, how will that impact the good that he promises to do?


    • lukenpridenh@gmail.com'
      Luke Pride April 7, 2016 at 2:36 am #

      Probably the same thing someone would mean if they said they are an objectivist first and American second. The two don’t conflict. But where he finds more of his identity is in his faith than where he resides.
      I think most families would say they are “smiths” or whatever before they are americans.

      • shepard_john@sbcglobal.net'
        John Shepard April 13, 2016 at 3:14 am #

        I agree with the analogy, Luke, that Cruz’s saying that he is a Christian first, American second, is the same as an Objectivist saying that he is an Objectivist first, American second. But the two do conflict, Christianity and America, whereas Objectivism and America do not conflict.

        Morality trumps politics (laws are push for or repudiate in the name of some view of what is moral, what is the good). What one holds to be moral will determine, in logic, in consistency, ultimately, what one will support and advocate politically.

        And although freedom of religion (and more broadly freedom of conscience) is compatible with freedom, freedom of religion is not compatible with Christianity (religion), because to have to accept freedom of conscience and a government that respects rights (including the freedom of conscience, including freedom of religion) Christians (religion) must accept that government is to be both unjust and immoral. (Would you accept the idea that government must be unjust and immoral?)

        That they cannot abide, except in as much as they are compelled, in the name of rights and freedom, to tolerate such government. That’s why there’s the continual push for religious values and ideas to gain political power and to dominate politics (as is the case with other ideologies, including Objectivism).

    • infidelproudinfidel@yahoo.com'
      bendix20 April 27, 2016 at 5:35 pm #

      Should be American first, the rest follows.

  5. zigory@comcast.net'
    Gregory Zeigerson April 2, 2016 at 11:43 am #

    This is a well explained argument fully supported by examples and quotations. Thank you for writing it.

  6. anjellael@hotmail.com'
    AnjellaEl April 2, 2016 at 12:02 pm #

    Of course our rights are from God. Our Country was founded on this simple fact.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    • shepard_john@sbcglobal.net'
      John Shepard April 2, 2016 at 4:01 pm #

      Of course, our rights are not from God.

      The basic problem with the view that our rights are from God, is: 1) Rights are not truly self-evident—they are neither perceptual nor axiomatic—and, 2) The assertion of God’s existence is irrational (faith-based) and therefore makes the concept of rights an arbitrary and rationally indefensible construct.

      Such is why the idea of rights, put forth as an irrational idea, has been so readily dismissed.

      • j-hawk4life@live.com'
        PaulWells52 April 3, 2016 at 7:54 am #

        Our Constitution states that our rights are from God. If you cannot accept that, France or other atheistic countries would probably welcome you with open arms. God being the ultimate arbiter of “equal” guarantees that rights are not “arbitrary”.

        • cac91965@yahoo.com'
          Borrow919 . April 4, 2016 at 7:50 am #

          No, Paul, you have it backwards. The attempt to derive rights from God is what is arbitrary due to the fact that God is essentially an imagined being for which there is no actual evidence. What do you say to the agnostic or atheist if he claims rights are subjective or do not exist? What do you point to besides words in the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution as you mistakenly say)?

  7. maureenrthompson@yahoo.com'
    Bowditch April 2, 2016 at 12:32 pm #

    I honor the honesty and practical wisdom of Mr. Biddle who understands that Ted Cruz is America’s best chance at preserving our fundamental unalienable rights. No other candidate has shown through a lifetime of consistent committtment to the foundationalism of the Constitution, defended against enemies on both sides of the aisle. Cruz is a man whose uncompromising work has, like Ayn Rand, won him countless enemies and countless admirers and loyal followers.

    • fingercurse@hotmail.com'
      Fingercurse April 3, 2016 at 7:16 pm #

      The fundamental basis of our rights being unalienable is that they are “God” given. I’m not even religious but I appreciate and understand the contrast that our rights are not given to us by Man. If the author and you don’tunderstand that fundamental principal then you live in a world where your rights are subject to change. Good luck with that.

      • john@jddawson.com'
        John Dawson April 7, 2016 at 2:30 am #

        Our rights are derived not from Man, nor from God, but from Nature – specifically from our rational human nature, i.e. from the demonstrable fact that we are animals whose primary means of survival is our rational capacity. It follows from this fact that if we are to live together we must be free to act on our rational judgement and trade with each other without initiating force against each other – etcetera etcetera as per the declaration and constitution inasmuch as it can be derived rationally from that basis.

        So rights are not granted by Men who can change them at will, nor by God who seems to reveal contrary rules to people of different faiths and leave them no recourse but force to establish which will be enforced. Good luck with that.

  8. ozdoxie_24@verizon.net'
    oz24 April 2, 2016 at 11:41 am #

    Excellent article!!! I am so glad an atheist sees what I see in Cruz, and isn’t so offended by his Christianity that he doesn’t see Cruz for the great candidate he is. My hat off to Mr. Biddle for being objective and open and I think you did a great job of putting forth so clearly why he would be the most principled and best man for the job. I would reckon atheists like honesty and truthfulness in their president just as a Christian does. I am thankful that we have a chance to have a candidate who will stand up and defend the Constitution/Bill of Rights and rule of law, which, by the way, as was so well stated, is for everyone. Everyone benefits when the law of the land is followed, that’s what gives us liberty. Thank you!

  9. dojoloco42@netscape.net'
    El Profe April 2, 2016 at 1:06 pm #

    Dr. Biddle,
    I understand the points you’ve made in your article. Some of us blogging at Dr. Harry Binswanger’s website (hbletter.com) are also engaged in such political discussions.
    My question is what are your thoughts on Dr. Peikoff’s take in the 2006 elections, which may very well apply to today? Here is the article: http://capitalismmagazine.com/2006/10/peikoff-on-the-2006-elections/
    Do you agree or disagree with his position? Why or why not?
    Thank you.
    ps I gather anyone may reply to my query as well.

    • shepard_john@sbcglobal.net'
      John Shepard April 2, 2016 at 4:20 pm #

      Not to speak for Mr. Biddle, but I will mention that Dr. Peikoff has addressed what he says in the article you reference, El Profe, “Peikoff On The 2006 Elections” (2006), in a 2010 podcast response to the question: Given the Obama administration and your stand on Republicans, will you support or vote for a Republican in November? (Duration: 04:46):


      My transcription:

      Now, for years I have said don’t ever vote Republican, they’re the greater threat by far, religion is what’s going to destroy this country, and I don’t deny that—in my book, when it comes out, The DIM Hypothesis, I’m going to defend that. Nevertheless, on this particular concrete, I have to say, yes!, I will vote for a Republican in November, because of the specific nature of the Obama administration and the Democrats. These are people methodically destroying the United States at home and abroad, much more extremely, I mean, in a much greater extent and much more rapidly than I expected. Plus, to inject the personal in this, they, their healthcare, is soon going to blossom a death squad, and that means they are going to very soon be killing off people like me who are over 65, so that becomes a personal reason.

      Now, I don’t believe that when the Republicans are elected in November—it seems almost certain that they will be—I certainly don’t believe they’re going to repeal Obama’s healthcare or legislation, because they never have repealed an entitlement. They basically agree with the morality underlying it, and once an entitlement gets in there’s a vocal group that benefits from it, that is sucking at that tit of government, and no one is going to quite them down. So all Republicans can do is chasten the Democrats for awhile and delay for awhile, and that gives you more time to fight.

      I put my general position this way: I always vote long-range over short-range, and that almost always means Democrat over a Republican, which I regard as the great long-ranged threat. But if and when the short-range means immediate death and disaster, then there is no long-range to wait for or work for. It’s not like it’s FDR or JFK where there’s just more bad steps in the mixed economy. It’s at the point where if it’s not stopped, we’ll get to the point where they, the Republicans, they’ll just walk right in faster than they could have otherwise. I still think it will be the religionists who take over, but a lot faster. And so, despite everything, I will vote Republican this Fall, even if I dislike the Republican, because if a protest is not registered, I can’t predict where we’ll be.

      I’ll give you a parallel to this: If there’s a man down the street who is manufacturing poison en masse next to a nuclear factory where he’s turning out potentially explosive devices and will be ready in ten years to annihilate the country, and as against that, a representative of a Mafia gang comes to the door and says, “I’m going to shoot you tomorrow.” or “today!,” I’ve got the gun aimed on him, and someone says, “Well, obviously, the guy with the chemical warfare, nuclear weapons is a hell of a lot more dangerous, but what good is that to know if you’re going to be shot tomorrow?” And that’s how I see the situation. The Republicans are making the chemical factory, but right now the Democrats have the gun aimed our house.

      Now, that’s the only time. There’s no use telling me all the things that I am getting wrong—I’m not even supposed to do politics—but I got so many of those I figured one time only.

    • shepard_john@sbcglobal.net'
      John Shepard April 2, 2016 at 7:02 pm #

      Deleted duplicate post, or at least a partial duplicate. (Full transcription from Dr. Peikoff’s podcast, in response the the question “Given the Obama administration and your stand on Republicans, will you support or vote for a Republican in November?” is just above. (Should be obvious.)

      • dojoloco42@netscape.net'
        El Profe April 3, 2016 at 5:34 am #

        Mr. Shepard,
        Thank you for your reply. You make some good and clear points. I’ll try to look for that 2010 podcast in which Dr. Peikoff discusses voting.

  10. dave@teammcgruer.ca'
    David McGruer April 2, 2016 at 1:41 pm #

    Thanks for a well structured and reasoned article that identifies the essential issues. Though not an American, I know how important the survival of freedom in America is to the future of the world. Cruz looks to be a step in the right direction and certainly stands head and shoulders above the other major candidates.

  11. slannis@verizon.net'
    SandyfromPgh April 2, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

    I am a devout Christian, but I chose to read the article in its entirety. I learned that even atheists have many good reasons for supporting Ted Cruz for President. I consider his devout Christian faith a plus, not a minus. Ted Cruz is exactly who we need to turn US around. Trump would lose to Hillary in a rout and we would lose the country. A vote for Kasich is a vote for Trump. TRUSTed

  12. john@johnhoward.com'
    JDHoward April 2, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

    Ted Cruz sided with Obozo against states that legalized pot. More recently, Cruz called for national registration of homeschoolers. Those positions are not consistent with support for individual freedom.

    • tita7308@gmail.com'
      Martha Cortez April 5, 2016 at 11:59 am #

      He said all issues not delegates to in the Constitution are left up to the states. Show us where pot is addressed in the Constitution. Also, just because he wants to give homeschoolers the option of receiving g federal funds to cover their school expenses doesn’t mean he’s forcing a national registration to control them. Doing away with the Dept of Education is on his to do list.

  13. david.a.riedell@gmail.com'
    SwansonNation April 2, 2016 at 8:29 pm #

    Good article. As a Christian myself, we don’t see eye to eye on everything – but that’s ok, we don’t have to. I appreciate that you recognize that Cruz stands for principles, even where you disagree with him. I like the way you went through his policy platform point by point with reasoned commentary.

    For the American experiment to work we don’t all have to be in lockstep in every single belief. We just have to agree to uphold our founding principles of individual rights and limited government.

  14. dojoloco42@netscape.net'
    El Profe April 3, 2016 at 6:52 am #

    I believe this may be the podcast to which you are referring.

  15. c3.gossett@gmail.com'
    Cary Gossett April 3, 2016 at 7:57 am #

    Excellent! Great to see an Objectivist judging Cruz objectively, a rarity. Well written, Mr. Biddle.

    Regards, Cary Gossett
    (Living Objectivism for 30 years)

  16. jcoopernd@gmail.com'
    Jeff Cooper April 4, 2016 at 7:31 pm #

    I have been thinking many of the same things about Cruz for a couple of months now and I finally get to read most of my ideas here. Thank you! I will never find my idea candidate amongst this year’s candidates; probably and sadly not ever in my lifetime. However, out of the men and women in this year’s election cycle I must support the individual that comes closest to upholding my ideals and articulates his or her positions in a rational way. Ted Cruz does just that and it is why I support his candidacy for President.

  17. thunderpoet@yahoo.com'
    Partager April 5, 2016 at 10:52 am #

    I am a Born-Again Evangelical Christian and Zionist.
    I understand the inner motivations of Ted Cruz more than people who have not had these “religious” experiences. And I do mean “experiences”, Events that took me rather than deciding on a theology that “made the most sense”.

    I was attracted to an article touting Ted Cruz as the best Presidential candidate because he so obviously IS for reasons outside of professed faith in the God of Israel.

    When I learned you were an Atheist, Craig, I certainly kept reading to find out what impressed you about Ted Cruz.

    Your article IS definitely a pass-around, and will be showing up in my Twitter account shortly.

    My hero, Pamela Geller, is also a big fan of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

    So, that someone I respect in my faith, Senator Ted Cruz, recognizes the value of Ayn Rand’s secular wisdom and principles makes a powerful impression on me.

    Ted Cruz’s view on the the place of his personal faith in the realm of earthly matters such as government is my view, too.

    The President has to be the leader of the People, people of all faiths, or no faith, united by belief in the binding documents of the United States of America. I have followed Ted Cruz for the past 4 years as he sailed against the bloviating winds of critics’ denunciations.

    It was the principled stands of Ted Cruz for the Constitution and for the return of principled Congressional leadership that attracted me first.

    Craig, as you point out, Ted Cruz is UNLIKE any politician we have had in Washington. Not even Ronald Reagan can match Cruz for intellectual prowess in making the case for More Liberty through adherence to the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

    I was praying, yes, fervently praying for someone, please, to finally stand up to the Obama administration who was not a blogger or pundit or commentator. That Cruz was INSIDE the democratic process, able to move within it and understand it better than all, even as a Freshman Senator, incredibly impressed me as a “God given” Antidote to Obama-ism.

    Your article, Craig, is the best summation of why Ted Cruz is the Superior, vastly superior Presidential Candidate for America. No one on the Republican side comes even close to the whole panoply of principled revolution achievable by electing this one man in 2016.

    He is Hope in a dark night. Not in a worshipful way. He is The prime example of the few true Conservatives who made themselves available to reverse the downward vulgar spiral into waste and decay that the USA has committed itself to for the past decade or more.

    Thank you, Craig, for one of the best articles promoting the candidacy of Ted Cruz for President, and for re-introducing me to Ayn Rand.

    May you continue in Blessings.

  18. patnapvo@gmail.com'
    Patricia Napolitano April 5, 2016 at 5:05 pm #

    Excellent article! As a woman I was immediately turned off by his stand on abortion, but now I will certainly vote for Cruz if he does not get Trumped and gets the Republican ticket. In a year where there once seemed no decent choice for President this article cleared things up for me. Thanks!
    But I must say, those sad sack Republicans better get their act together. Their religiousness and rigidity and in some cases, hypocrisy, are destroying their party and the country. If Sanders or Hillery is elected it is their fault.

  19. wadcobil@gmail.com'
    Bil Danielson April 6, 2016 at 8:28 am #

    Stunned to read this endorsement of Ted Cruz by TOS. Ted Cruz assumes his supporters (and now TOS appears to have swallowed it) know little about the facts of the issues and simply believe his inflexible, false rendition of events. Moreover, Cruz has no specific, concrete and workable ideas to address multiple specific problems. Cruz has spent most of his time inflaming voters to whom he offers only anger – in short he appears to have serious issues with reality.

    Add to the above that he has welcomed the endorsement of Troy Newman and to date has not disavowed or publicly regretted his appearance on stage with Kevin Swanson and you have, in fact (notwithstanding he is moderating his rhetoric presently), an individual in Cruz who may not speak specifically in terms of theocracy, but in practice clearly leans that way. His positions on abortion and by clear association homosexuality are so utterly anti-individual rights that for TOS to blanket endorse him simply leaves me speechless.

    There are many, many, issues upon which I agree completely with TOS. However, on this issue, I completely and totally disagree.

  20. john@jddawson.com'
    John Dawson April 7, 2016 at 3:42 am #

    A very persuasive case for Cruz. And you could add that he’s extremely bright, well educated, distinguished in constitutional law, has proven himself in the Senate, won’t have a bar of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Doctrine, and seems a decent family man.

    Despite all that, his religion is a very powerful argument against him – the more so because of what in other contexts we admire him for: his uncompromising, principled, integrity. if he agrees with his hero-dad, he doesn’t believe in the fundamental separation of Church and State. He would ban abortions, the only exception being to save the life of the mother; he wouldn’t make an exception for rape, and presumably not for disabilities either. And, I guess, he would ban the use of embryonic stem cells. So if I were to vote for him it would be in the hope that Congress and the Supreme Court would block his agenda in the right places – but I would have voted for his mandate to appoint judges who agree with him!!

  21. katherineglarson@comcast.net'
    kate April 9, 2016 at 10:23 pm #

    This is one of the best articles I’ve ever read. So heavy on Facts, so light on Spin. I’m agnostic and a huge Cruz supporter, because despite his religion, he is an American first and foremost and obviously wants our country to be strong and successful again. I’ve shared this article everywhere, and there are nods in agreement re-shares all around. Well done!

  22. benkrug@yahoo.com'
    benkrug April 25, 2016 at 2:20 pm #

    I worry that (among other things) he credits Ayn Rand, but bases his beliefs on religion. Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Capitalism, etc, would be smeared and unjustly blamed for any problems during his administration. The idea would be “we tried that, and look what happened.” (Much as capitalism is blamed for Reagan-era policies.) I believe that this would do more harm than good in the long run. If we are going to vote based on ideas, let’s wait for someone who truly has the right ideas.

  23. jamontgom@hotmail.com'
    mtnrunner2 April 27, 2016 at 10:28 pm #

    I agree. Trump is an arbitrary loose cannon who I don’t trust. Hilary and Bernie are destructive collectivists (redundant of course). Hopefully Cruz will be on the ballot…

Leave a Reply