Skip to comments.In Iowa, Ted Cruz rallies religious right
Posted on 08/22/2015 7:09:07 AM PDT by Isara
Cruz spoke about his experience defending freedom of religion at the Supreme Court and what he said were the threats facing religious liberty.
"These threats have been growing, they have been growing for decades but never have the threats been greater to religious liberty than they are right here and now today," he said.
"These threats are not imagined, they're not made up. These are real people leading real lives who found themselves facing persecution simply for living out their faith. There is a war on faith in America today."
Audience members frequently murmured "Amen" as Cruz spoke.
"They didn't ask for confrontation and the government came to them and said, 'Choose between faith and obedience to government power,' and they said, 'I follow a higher power and that is God almighty,'" Cruz said.
"We could not celebrate a sin," an emotional Betty Odgaard said.
"People and the media attempt to criticize you as somehow intolerant, and yet what is the tolerance that has been demonstrated to you for following a biblical teaching?" Cruz said. "You have endured the pain, endured the attacks, endured the hatred, that precisely put you where you are here today ... Dick, you talked about not knowing where your friends are. Well let me point out, there are 3,000 Iowans," Cruz said to a standing ovation.
At one point, Cruz was interrupted by a small group of immigration protestors holding a sign that read, "CITIZENSHIP NOW."
"I appreciate your expressing your First Amendment rights," Cruz said. "You're welcome to come to a town hall and I'll answer your question. Tonight, we're focusing on religious liberty."
"U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.," the audience chanted as they were escorted out by event staff.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
His use of the words “We” and “Us” say a lot about the kind of man Ted Cruz is.
Every caucus vote that Mike Huckabee managed to find in Iowa, is now focused on Ted Cruz. Trump grabs and drags them in on immigration, Cruz appeals to their social conservative side.
I see a very potent combination shaping up.
In Iowa, Ted Cruz rallies religious right
Not to take anything away from Cruz but the American people have been rallied by President Obama and an out of control Supreme Court.
Mr. Cruz is just smart enough to understand we are ready to dump the GOPE and drive a real conservative into the White House so we can restore America to its right path...
Tonight I attended the best candidate event I've ever attended in Iowa, and the candidate wasn't even the main event,
The Holy Spirit was.
We're hearing a lot from candidates these days about the need for revival, but Ted Cruz is the first candidate I've ever seen put on an event trying to ignite one. Tonight's rally for religious liberty was moving, challenging, convicting, and entertaining. Tears were shed for those persecuted for their faith, but there was also joy at the end as the Newsboys brought the house down to close it out. Reminding us at the end that God's not dead.
Mere campaigns aren't capable of this kind of event -- only movements.
The Cruz team, including state director Bryan English, should be very proud of this effort. But humbled as well, because they clearly have something more than a presidential campaign on their hands now. They have a mission.
Tonight's spectacle confirmed we made the right decision to support Cruz and do so early. There's never been an event like this for a candidate in Iowa, and it seriously ups the ante on the other campaigns.
The price of poker just went up. Cruz 2016 ain't playing.
The liberals soil themselves at the mention of the religious right.
freedom of the spoken word...freedom of the printed/published/written word.....freedom of the CHURCH..ie “an establishment of religion”. Not two opposing clauses which cancel each other out being both “for” & “against” religion....but meant to represent one cogent thought...that religion is “good” makes people moral, & law-abiding and the church is a check & balance on the power of the state-same as the press—and needs specific protection from goverment in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment doesn’t protect people from the Church, it protects the people & the states & the press & the church from the national government...all government. Congress shall make no law having to do with (ie with respect to/respecting) a church or other place of worship,(ie a religious establishment/an establishment of religion) or preventing the free exercise, thereof
AND...if Congress shall make no law.........the same prohibition applies to courts of law which make decisions carrying the weight of law...or even carrying the weight of being in-effect illegal Constitutional amendments. Both Roe v Wade (which de-regulated abortion doctors who are licensed by the states & aren’t above the law) & the recent decisions on same-sex marriage & even on Obamacare...were cases where judges/courts were allowed to illegally amend the United States Constitution ..which only can be amended by supermajority of the people. If judges are given the power to decide how much power judges are given by the Constitution, then there are no checks or balances on high courts & judges...who soon decide that nobody can stop them from illegally amending the Constitution to force states to license same-sex marriage.....or to declare all takings may be called “taxes”, then declare that all taxes are unconstitutional...ignoring all the rights of the people & restrictions against taxes & takings already in the U.S> Constitution.....Obamacare.
The federal court should make no law regarding ANY subject period. They are merely empowered to decide guilt or innocence on existing law.
The power of nullification is one they share with the States and the other 2 branches of the Federal government it does NOT include the power to demand action on the part of any other party merely to refuse cooperative action.
That is the key to nullification and why it enforces a Constituent of law (limits) to the Government not entitlements from the government which are in practice unreliable and depended upon the consent and good policy of politicians.
You cannot in a constitutional system empower any one party to demand action by any other party. That would in effect negate the protection of checks and balances. That is why nullification is one way non-cooperation only.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.