Ted Cruz’s Latest Attack on President Obama Should Disqualify Him From Running for President

ted-cruz-stinksRepublicans have proven time and time again that there really doesn’t seem to be a level to which they will not stoop when it comes to attacking President Obama. They’ve gone far beyond typical political partisan disagreement into what many might call borderline hate speech against the president. Most conservatives I come across don’t just disagree with his policies, they legitimately hate him and think he’s out to destroy the country.


Hell, just look at the Jade Helm nonsense. Many conservatives have been pumped with so much anti-Obama propaganda that they honestly believed a military training exercise was a plot by this administration to declare martial law and confiscate guns. And this wasn’t just a few fringe, right-wing loonies who believed this nonsense – about one in three Republicans believed it was a ploy by Obama to invade Texas.

And when it comes to outrageous anti-Obama rhetoric, GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz has been one of the most ridiculous. Sadly, his latest comments concerning the tragic execution of a deputy sheriff went beyond ridiculous to flat-out disgusting.

“Cops across this country are feeling the assault,” Cruz said. “They’re feeling the assault from the president, from the top on down as we see, whether it’s in Ferguson or Baltimore, the response of senior officials of the president, of the attorney general, is to vilify law enforcement. That is fundamentally wrong, and it is endangering the safety and security of us all.”

Yes, that’s Ted Cruz basically trying to blame the murder of Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth on President Obama.

While I know his comments don’t legally disqualify him from running for president, just based on a basic level of human decency, they really should.

If you want to have a discussion about the anti-cop rhetoric that’s out there, I’m all for it. As I’ve stated before, if all the verifiable facts someone knows prior to rushing out to protest a police-involved shooting is “black male shot by police officer,” I’m sorry, but that’s not pro-justice, that’s anti-cop. Justice is based on wanting to know the facts before determining whether or not you should be protesting something. And I do believe what was once a great conversation about how we can improve the quality of our law enforcement officers to ensure they behave ethically and legally has been hijacked by far too many people who just hate cops.


That being said, for Cruz to try to blame the president, or really anyone other than the monster who executed this officer, is inexcusable.

Not only that, but on numerous occasions President Obama has spoken out in support of police officers. So for Cruz to insinuate that he’s been “anti-cop” isn’t just absurd, it’s just flat-out wrong.

Again, while I know these comments don’t legally disqualify Cruz from running for president, anyone who would support someone who’s vile enough to try to blame a horrific murder on the president for political gain should be ashamed of themselves.

Then again, considering the type of voter to which Ted Cruz panders, he’ll probably see a bump in his polling numbers following these disgusting comments.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Larry Shinpaugh

    I’m sorry, but when you have an administration that basically condones criminals, i.e. Michael Brown, Tavon Martin, etc, yet hardly utters a word regarding 6 cop killings in a month, you would have to think something. Americans are fearful right now. They need a president to unite, and all this one wants is to divide. Divide down racial lines. #blacklivesmatters? How about all lives matter. And that is what HE should be speaking to America. When you value one life over another, one race over another, you start the decline of your society, you get what you have now.

    • Beth Conrad

      LOL!! I love Republican racists. The black boogie man is everywhere they look. They’re a pathetic bunch.

    • John

      As a white man who wants to become a law enforcement officer, you really can’t blame the President.

      Personally, I blame Fox News and their ilk who decided, for some reason, to not stick up for the victim in almost every case. If Americans had been united against police corruption and brutality, there would not be any hostilities.

      • Ipneo

        Exactly John. We cannot stand up for good cops by protecting bad ones. We must promote and protect a strong, professional police force that upholds the motto “to serve and to protect.” It is time that we begin to give our young men and women who choose to serve their communities the proper training to do so.

    • Sean Jones

      Oh look, another scared white man who cant stand a black President. You need to grow up and wake up. If you think simply being black is enough to divide this country what do you say to people like FOX news, Bill O, rush that make a living spewing hateful divisive bullshit? Or are they just exercizing their 1st Amendment?

    • What the hell, Larry? Just a small portion of his 10 minute speech to the 34th annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service:

      “Your jobs are inherently dangerous. The reminders are too common,” Obama said Friday. “We cannot erase every darkness or danger from the duty that you’ve chosen.We can offer you the support you need to be safer. We can make the communities you care about and protect safer as well.”

    • 1Smith1

      Michael Brown and Trayvon Marton were not criminals. I’m sure your Fox Propaganda masters have convinced you they were, but they weren’t. And this administration has not condoned criminals.

    • Smalldeer

      Larry, HOGWASH.

      Police have killed 103 civilians just this month, they have killed 1,150 since the beginning of the year. Do you really think there would not be backlash to the civilian killings?

      Do you know how many officers have been killed this year? There have been 26 and that includes 2 accidental shootings.

      Regular people are much more likely to be killed BY police, than police are killed by regular people.

      FYI – Shooting deaths of officers are actually down 13 percent compared with the same January-to-September period in 2014.

    • noah vail

      you didn’t speak out or you didn’t care when it was black people being killed but now you’re all about “all lives matter”…GFY you hypocrite

      • Kathy Levittown

        Bravo!

    • Kathy Levittown

      Thanks, hitler….your post is pure hallucination..

  • Alan Whipple

    The simple fact is, no matter what Obama did people like Ted Cruz would speak out as if it was something horrible, and masses of Americans would agree. It’s never about what he does, but the fact that he is the one who does it. He could give everyone a good job, cure all forms of cancer and cause world peace and clowns like Ted Cruz and Larry Shinpaugh would find some way to say he was wrong for doing it.

    • FD Brian

      I wish Obama would tell Cruz that breathing is the most liberal thing you can do.

  • strayaway

    Once in a while some redneck will kill someone and pundits will claim that he was under the spell of Rush and right wing radio. If he hadn’t been listening to such people, why then he would have killed or so the logic goes. So now, Cruz does the same thing and claims Obama has created an atmosphere conducive to these police killings. I disagree with both opinions. The killers are responsible for their own actions. Maybe, in their twisted minds, they were influenced by something Obama, Rush, Cruz, or Farrakhan said or what they didn’t say, but the responsibility lies with the killer. Otherwise, we will be inviting irresponsibility and attacks on freedom of speech and leaders.

    • Jillz

      99% agreed.

      The only thing I disagree with in what you said, (and it’s not really disagreement, just pointing out a difference), is that President Obama is not blatantly attempting to incite, whereas the right-wing, led by its cheerleaders in the media, is (inciting hate and civil disobedience).

      When a homeless man gets beat up and the perpetrators name a Presidential candidate as the influence; or kooks fire guns around military training camps; or over-entitled law clerks think they can violate a Supreme Court ruling, there is a more direct line to the source of the hatred ([1] Trump; [2] pundits and/or politicians inciting fear re: Jade Helm; [3] Republicans telling people to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality in these three examples).

      • strayaway

        I generally agree that the president isn’t trying to incite violence or hate while some pundit such as Rush, Ann Coulter, and Rachel Maddow craft their wording in such a way as to allow more ammunition to haters prone to violence. However, by example this president has the bad habit of picking and choosing laws he wishes to enforce. If others used his example, the clerk who won’t issue same sex marriage licenses for instance, that could de-legitimize government and authority. The president has also, from my parochial perspective, played favorites. His tone and enforcement priorities do seem tied to race.

      • Jillz

        I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the President choosing which laws he wishes to enforce and how that is relevant to inciting hate and violence.

        The county clerk believes she actually has a right to refuse to do her secular job based on her religious beliefs. Several Republican lawmakers told citizens to ignore the SCOTUS ruling almost as soon as it happened. The Christian right is constantly trying to push the Bible into law. Her actions do de-legitimize government and authority. How did Obama influence any of that?

        His tone and enforcement priorities seem tied to race? Whaaaaa? He wants to enforce immigration reform (along with a large majority of Americans); he wants to enforce sensible gun regulations (along with a large majority of Americans). But he supports the TPP (along with Republicans). You’ll have to help me to understand what you mean in your last statement. I don’t see it.

      • strayaway

        Immigration laws passed by Congress for starters. I doubt doing so would promote violence but it would promote, by example, a contempt for following laws. Where that could lead is anyone’s guess but if the president can disregard laws, a county clerk, or gun owner might might think they can too. It isn’t just Christians, there have been stories about Muslim taxi drivers refusing to pick up blind people with seeing eye dogs or observe dress codes. I’m for immigration reform too. I want to enforce existing laws and severely punish cheating employers so that jobs will dry up for illegal aliens and many will go home on their own accord.

        Again, from my own perspective, I noticed that when Trayvon was murdered, Obama comes out with, if I had a son he would look like Trayvon. When a white is killed by a black and even gets national media attention, Obama makes a statement about that’s wrong, and he don’t approve. The difference I notice is that one is very emotionally based and the Justice Department is sent in and the other is a formal, perfunctory, and correct statement. I haven’t heard; has the Justice department been sent in to take over the investigation of the murders of reporters or police? That’s just the feeling I get. I notice two different tones and follow-ups. Although half white, Obama doesn’t identify with dead white victims with comments like if I had a son, he would…

      • Jillz

        Ok, I still don’t fully agree with your conclusions, but I see what you mean now – thanks 🙂

        “Immigration laws passed by Congress for starters”

        Not being argumentative, but which one(s) has the President refused to enforce? I very strongly agree with you that employers hiring illegal immigrants should be punished, and severely, but how can the President really do anything about it? Do you think for a minute that Republicans would sit back and allow this President to enforce the evil “regulations” on a corporation?

        As far as the ongoing gun violence, it’s an emotional issue for everyone as far as I can tell. I really don’t know which cases the DOJ has been called in on but my perception of the President’s reaction(s) is that he has been pretty consistent – he seems frustrated and heartbroken every time he has to make a public address about another shooting.

        The initial point though, is that the President is NOT inciting hate through his speech. The same can’t be said of the right (both politicians and pundits) – they are inciting hate using lies and propaganda on a daily basis and it DOES influence the crazies (who are able to obtain firearms thanks to the right’s refusal to discuss sensible gun regulations). I’ve also never heard the President telling citizens to ignore laws. Again, the same cannot be said of Republicans.

      • strayaway

        Which ones? Leaving a porous border, not returning illegal aliens to their home country when found, releasing them and recently, more and more releasing illegal aliens awaiting trials for misdemeanors and crimes for starters. A court ruling now requires a hearing for all deportations and that process is backed up. Obama also claims not to have money to do so although he has spent over $8.1T of money we don’t have for other things including give illegal “children” (average ave 16) rides to the destination of their choice and handing out work permits to illegal aliens to take Americans’ jobs. As president, he is supposed to be defending our borders from invasions and following laws requiring the return of illegal aliens to their home countries. No, I don’t think a lot of republicans would allow Obama Obama to return their supply of cheap labor; legal or illegal.

        I don’t think the president is trying to incite hate in his speech either but I think he is inciting contempt for law by his example. He said, “I changed the law” which he did; a violation Article 1, Section 1 and his oath of office. Most gun homicides are perpetrated by people who are probably left leaning so I think it a distortion and hype to characterize Republican crazies as being synonymous with gun homicides.

      • Jillz

        Republicans and the right in general (the politicians and the pundits) are the ones inciting hate though.

        A “porous” border? How did it become porous? Was it like that when he came to office? If so, how can you blame the President when changes have to go through Congress and the opposition refuses to work with him on anything?

        He changed a law? A President can’t do that, no matter what he said. If you’re referring to his EO’s on immigration, he has the right and every reason for having to do so. As above, the House won’t pass anything to address the problem and the President has a mandate toward American citizens to try and address these things, regardless of Republican obstruction.

        He has deported more illegal immigrants than President’s gone before.

        I disagree with your assertion that “most” gun homicides are “perpetrated by people who are PROBABLY left leaning”. Furthermore, it doesn’t change the fact that it is the right that is blatantly inciting hate and civil disobedience.

      • strayaway

        No, the border was porous when he came to office. Bush was also in the service of the US Chamber of Commerce championing cheaper H-1B labor and turning a blind eye to the illegal flow of cheap and illegal labor across the border.

        How? Because he, in his own words, “changed the law” and reassigned the Border Patrol the job of delivering minor aliens to addresses across the US and reassigned Homeland Security the job of distributing working permits to people who had violated our border. There was no law authorizing the latter. No, a president can’t constitutionally do that but he did it by executive orders.

        The claim that “He has deported more illegal immigrants than past Presidents” is BS. 2.1M left under Eisenhower and 3.6M left under Truman.

        I was trying not to mention it but the gun homicide rate is worse in places like Washington, D.C., Detroit, Baltimore than in places like Utah, Nebraska, and New Hampshire. Whether you want to see the difference is being Democrat/Republican or black/white I don’t care. Either way, higher rates of murders are committed by demographics more likely to be Democratic than Republican. Maybe the solution is to impose gun control in Democratic enclaves and leave Republican places alone. That is happening already and is instigated by Democrats not that it does much good. Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation but has a gun homicide rate 55x that of Vermont according to the FBI. To be fair, I should note that Vermont also votes Democratic.

      • 1Smith1

        When did Obama “change the law and reassigned the Border Patrol the job of delivering minor aliens to addresses across the US and reassigned Homeland Security the job of distributing working permits to people who had violated our border.”
        Please provide a credible* link to back that claim.
        Also, please provide a credible* link to prove that Rachel Maddow has incited violence or hate mongered. I’d like to see where she’s called someone a killer on her show and repeatedly said that the killer should be “taken care of”.
        Note – credible links. That means no right-wing shitsites.

      • strayaway

        I’ll start doing a Google search on the first of your two assignments after you agree that If I find them (consider it a welfare handout), you will label yourself as ignorant and lazy.

        Regarding Rachel Maddow, What I wrote was, “I generally agree that the president isn’t trying to incite violence or hate while some pundit such as Rush, Ann Coulter, and Rachel Maddow craft their wording in such a way as to allow more ammunition to haters prone to violence.” I did not claim that Rachel Maddow “has incited violence or hate mongered.” Stop making up lies. You want me to report back with “credible links” although you are a lier. Nice. But the deal is on. If you agree to label yourself as ignorant and lazy if I find credible sources indicating that Obama “change(d) the law and reassigned the Border Patrol the job of delivering minor aliens to addresses across the US and reassigned Homeland Security the job of distributing working permits to people who had violated our border.” It probably doesn’t count that Obama himself, said, “I CHANGED THE LAW” because you wanted a credible source.

      • Jillz

        But is it not actually treasonous (or at least seditious) to meet with an enemy of the country that your country is negotiating with, against the wishes of the Commander in Chief?

        Truth does make a difference and unfortunately, right-wing “media” pundits are generally the ones pushing hate inciting lies. Perhaps Maddow could have used different words to speak truth, words with less bias maybe, but it doesn’t change the fact that what Cotton did was not in the best interest of the USA.

      • strayaway

        Not at all. ALL speech is protected by the First Amendment. If you or I were able to talk to Fidel or the crazy Korean guy, we are guaranteed that right.

        I don’t know if it was even Maddow’s commentary but it was an essay on her blog. I don’t know if what Cotton did was in the best interest of the US. Nor do I know if what Obama cobbled together is in the best interest of the US because even our Senators haven’t been allowed to read it. I do like the idea of negotiating with Iran but if the details involve giving $50B of stuff to both Saudi Arabia and Israel or such things I might be against it. I do expect our Senators to at least read it before approving it. Other wise they are guilty of something like neglecting their fiduciary responsibilities.

      • Jillz

        Hm. I don’t know about the First Amendment protecting elected officials interfering with sensitive international negotiations that the President is undertaking. Other than making the American Congress look like idiots, the letter he [Cotton] sent did nothing but reveal a weakness (the political division) of the USA to her enemies (i.e. elected officials taking action against a sitting President attempting to thwart negotiations with a foreign government). You sure about that?

        In ANY case. None of this justifies the hate that right wing politicians and pundits are inciting or the lies they keep telling.

      • strayaway

        ” Congress shall make NO law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

        NO exceptions and Article 1, Section 1 says that only Congress can legislate.

        My bigger concern at this point is with Senators who sign onto something without reading it and the administration’s refusal, as I understand it, to let them read it. I am otherwise in favor of negotiating rather than bombing and embargoes but we don’t know what’s in it either and I don’t trust the president. He isn’t transparent and tell lies. Examples of whoppers: If I am elected, I will end the (Iraq) war immediately. Concerning the (un)ACA: He promised that it wouldn’t raise taxes, would cut the average family’s health care premiums $2,500 annually, and under the plan you could keep your own doctor. He also promised to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Considering such things, it would be best for Senators to read the treaty. And yes, according to any dictionary definition, it is a treaty not a “deal”. It therefore requires a 2/3 Senate approval. Calling it a “deal” is a sleazy way around the Constitution.

      • Jillz

        “NO exceptions …”

        But there ARE exceptions!

        “The Supreme Court has identified categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment and may be prohibited entirely. Among them are obscenity, child pornography, and
        speech that constitutes so-called “fighting words” or “true threats.”

        www DOT fas DOT org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

        Seditious speech (by elected officials) is not protected by the Constitution (because sedition isn’t legal).

      • Jillz

        Here’s the full text of Iran Nuclear Deal. If I was able to find it through Google, the administration is clearly NOT refusing to let Senators read it (maybe the Senators are lazy, or just can’t read, but their failure to read it is obviously not due to a lack of transparency).

        www DOT documentcloud DOT org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html

        This discussion isn’t about the ACA, and since you only used it to illustrate your mistrust of the President, there is no need – you don’t have to trust him, you can read the deal (which he is obviously not keeping secret) for yourself.

      • strayaway

        Jillz, A very interesting find if true. I did find a letter from Sen. Schuler suggesting it is: “I have spent the last three weeks doing just that: carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement.” If it is the same document, then the Senate has had it since at least mid-July and I am wrong. That might put me on the side of supporting it. What I have read, so far, looks good and certainly a better alternative to embargoes. I already wrote to my Democratic Senator several days ago saying he/she shouldn’t vote for it without first reading it and only as a treaty rather than a “deal”. “We found broad agreement among experts that a future president or a future Congress could indeed undo or modify the kind of agreement that’s currently being negotiated with Iran.” -Factcheck regarding Congress passing an executive “deal” instead of voting for it as a treaty.

      • Jillz

        Thanks! I thought it was an interesting find too! 🙂

        “But I am for free speech and do not consider buzzfeed’s posting “seditious” to use your phrase”

        The ONLY sedition I refer to in my posts is that of the Republican controlled House of Representatives and/or any elected official inciting civil disobedience (those “lawmakers” encouraging citizens to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality, for one example). Sorry if anything other than that was inferred by my posts. I also strongly feel that it is predominantly the right (politicians and pundits) that is inciting hate through speech.

      • strayaway

        Obama is setting the precedent and bad example of ignoring laws creating a template for anarchy but you seem more worried about a clerk who did the same. I’m for equal treatment under the law.

      • Jillz

        I just don’t agree with you about the “precedents” and “bad examples” of Obama, that’s all. I don’t think he’s perfect, and he’s certainly far from a “perfect” liberal, but he’s been incredible in the face of the unprecedented obstruction he’s had to deal with.

      • strayaway

        No, the First Amendment is still in play. How do you know what Cotton did or even what is in Obama’s Iran treaty he refuses to let Senators read although he is the most transparent president ever?

      • Kathy Levittown

        He didn’t..the other poster is nuts

      • strayaway

        Like the boy who insisted that it was obvious that the emperor didn’t have a glorious wardrobe. Kathy still wants to believe.

      • noah vail

        “The claim that “He has deported more illegal immigrants than past Presidents” is BS. 2.1M left under Eisenhower and 3.6M left under Truman”…….and how many million came in and were granted amnesty by reagan?? 3.5 -4 million….btw in the 40s and 50s we had the “bracero” program

      • strayaway

        You are right. Reagan betrayed America. He vastly increased the debt too. What’s your point? I was responding to Jillz erroneous statement that Obama “deported more illegal immigrants than past Presidents.” As far as I know, Truman holds the record with 3.6M illegal aliens heading home during his presidency.

      • Jillz

        You had to go back to the 1940s-1950s to find a President who has deported more illegal immigrants than President Obama. I understand your frustration with the current situation, and I respect you for your incredibly consistency with your position that employers should be fined for hiring illegal workers, but at least give credit and blame where it’s due. President Obama isn’t the bad guy on this one. With the exception of corporations hiring illegal workers, no one is really. Well, except the do-nothing Congress who talked for how long about an immigration reform bill and then did nothing. At least Obama is trying to do something.

      • strayaway

        I’m not even Republican but I was responding to your question, “He has deported more illegal immigrants than past Presidents.” You didn’t even specify Republican. Anyway, you got a bonus when it turned out that a Democratic President had rid the Country of more illegal aliens than any Republican president. Too bad the Democratic Party has abandoned US workers to the degree it has since Truman. Obama, Democrats, and all the Republicans who go along with this economic treason are the bad ones on this . The immigration reform bill will be a disaster for US workers if ever passed. Obama is trying to get Hispanic votes; the heck with US workers.

      • Kathy Levittown

        INCITING COMTEMPT FOR LAW? You are out of your mind….THATS JINDAL AN HUCKABEE WHO CALL FOR THE CLERK IN KY TO OPENLY DEFY LAW ON RELIGIOUS BS PRINCIPLES….

      • strayaway

        I’m all for punishing the Kentucky clerk who didn’t follow the law. But let’s be fair. If she didn’t enforce the law and was punished, consider that Obama refused to enforce immigration law. He should be similarly punished.

      • Kathy Levittown

        Again..pure bull..youre like the rest of the republicans..You use “hate lite” in your speech to make it palatable..but its still the same old lies..later..

      • strayaway

        Specify my error or shut up.

      • Kathy Levittown

        I think youre full of it….And Rachel Maddow doesn’t incite hate….how dare you even put her in the same sentence as rush and coulter..proves to me you need some help….

      • strayaway

        I’m just saying that I noticed comments to a blog on her website were hateful. Sorry for noticing. Keep pretending.

      • Susan Beiting

        You are so on point.

    • Janeen Alley

      Then educate us? Why did Obama attack the Confederate Battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia for the murders of the 9 Americans killed in Charleston, SC? That battle flag had as much to do with the murders as the Rainbow flag had to do with the murders of the reporter and her camera man by a guy black man in Virginia! Why didn’t Obama demand the African flag flying at the United Nation’s to be taken down? Dylan Roof had those on his jacket? You can’t fix stupid, but you can muffle the sound with duct tape!

  • FD Brian

    Does Cruz realize that the tyrannical government he warns us of will start with the police.

  • William Haney

    Not a Cruz supporter but Obummer has been a total joke