Politico.com reports on the already struggling first-out-of-the-box presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas).  In an article entitled Insiders Pump the Brakes on Cruz, James Hohman reports that Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire have serious doubts about the electability of firebrand Cruz.   A survey conducted of the POLITICO Caucus (described as a “bipartisan group of key activists, operatives and thought leaders in New Hampshire and Iowa”) makes it clear that Cruz may have an uphill fight in gaining traction among party movers and shakers.

Not one of the 100 respondents believes that Cruz would win the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary if they took place this week, though there is widespread agreement that he is much better positioned in the Hawkeye State than the Granite State. And nine out of 10 Republican insiders in the early states believe Ted Cruz couldn’t carry their state — both Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states, though relatively small electoral-vote prizes — against Hillary Clinton in the general.

Tea Party favorite and current At-Large Position 5 Houston City Council Member Jack “Backcracker” Christie will not be sailing towards an unopposed reelection.  Christie was the only City Council member to vote against accepting federal money to pay for flu immunizations for low income kids, claiming “You don’t die from the flu.”   After his only opponent withdrew from the race, Christie may have hoped for a free ride back to the council chambers.  But yesterday, he learned that he now has two opponents both of whom present far different choices than the reliably conservative Christie.  Phillippe Nassif a self-described Lebanese-Mexican-American is a non-profit leader and community organizer who has worked for Mayor Parker and Pres. Obama’s campaigns.  Durrel Douglas is a former prison guard who has also worked for Democrats in the Texas Legislature and touts his community service to his hometown.  Off the Kuff has posted the campaign announcements for both candidates. .

You would expect a U.S. Senator who announces his candidacy for President to have a distinguished track record of service and influence within that august body. That is, a Senator who has been influential among his colleagues and has written and sponsored important legislation that has actually become law; someone who has the ability to get things done in the Senate and pass legislation that has an important impact on the lives of Americans.  How does Sen. Cruz stack up?

Since he has been in the Senate, Ted Cruz (TP-Texas), who thinks himself worthy of consideration for President, has sponsored exactly one piece of legislation that has become law.  It was a bill to amend an existing statute that gives the President power to exclude certain persons from coming into the U.S. to attend the United Nations.  The bill added to the existing prohibition for letting spies into the U.S. by also including persons who have been found to have engaged in terrorist activities. I think we can all agree that we don’t need to be letting terrorists into our country.

Here is the text of the bill in its entirety.

Public Law 113-100
113th Congress

                                                              An Act
 
To deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a  threat to United States national security interests. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. VISA LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
                              UNITED NATIONS.

    Section 407(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (8 U.S.C. 1102 note) is amended–
            (1) by striking “such individual has been found to have  been engaged in espionage activities” and inserting the following: “such individual–
            “(1) has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)))”; and
            (2) by striking “allies and may pose” and inserting the
        following: “allies; and
            “(2) may pose”.

    Approved April 18, 2014.

That new semi-colon does it for Red, let’s just skip the election and let Ted take over now.

Numerous media outlets are reporting that Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) will announce his candidacy for President today at Liberty University in Virginia. It’s very rare for a candidate to announce at a venue away from his home state. But Cruz’s time in DC has shown that his political agenda has almost nothing to do with Texas or improving the lives of Texas citizens. The Cruz agenda appears to be about one thing and one thing only – the greater glorification of all things Ted Cruz. And one has to admit that it has been a remarkably success so far. Red cannot recall a junior senator raising such a ruckus in his first term of holding any political office. Which raises the question of what it is that qualifies Cruz for President – beyond being 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the U.S.? And speaking of that second requirement – where do the “birthers’ stand on the undeniable fact that Cruz was born in Canada? Red doesn’t question Cruz’s technical qualification for the highest office, but how can one have questioned Obama’s qualification for the office and then ignore the same problem with respect to Cruz. For a decent analysis of the situation see Rick Ungar’s column in Forbes.

Texas Republicans are convinced that the right to bear arms is a God-given right.  This has been a primary argument in their fight to bring concealed carry and open carry of firearms to Texas campuses.  It leads to some interesting exchanges on the Senate floor.  Such as when Sen. John Whitmire (D- Houston), the longest serving senator, questioned gun rights advocate Sen. Brian Birdwell (TP- Granbury).

Whitmire:  “You believe it’s a God-given right to arm yourself and to defend yourself. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Is that the premise of your legislation?”

Birdwell: “The Declaration (of Independence) says we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and that to protect these rights, governments are instituted among men to preserve them. Article VII of the U.S. Constitution brings forward the Declaration as original law, therefore, creator and God are the same to me.  The right to self preservation and the right to defend one’s life is God-given because of the language in our Declaration and Article VII of the U.S. Constitution.”

Whitmire:  “And you’ve explained that to me and I do not understand fully the God right…I don’t remember in the Sunday school lessons or in my Scriptures that God spoke, obviously to weapons, or concealed weapons holders.”

The Austin American Statesman reports that the feel-good era for GOP lawmakers in the Texas Legislature may be coming to an end.  A first sign of the possible schism involved a sign that Rep. Jonathan Stickland (TP- Bedford) placed outside of his Capitol office identifying him as a “Former Fetus.”  The sign was removed by Rep. Charlie Green (who enforces chamber rules) with a reminder that the Preservation Board prohibits such displays.  Strickland viewed the removal as the first shot across the bow signaling a coming war between the Tea Party diehards and the not completely insane wing of the Republican party.

At its root, the exchange between the two members actually might be a foreshadowing of stormy times ahead in the Texas House.

“I think the Kumbaya is about to be over,” Stickland said. “It’s time to start telling the voters where we stand. I think people are beginning to get anxious.”

The divisive speaker’s race of 2015 seems long ago, and the days of celebrating, back-slapping and getting reacquainted are coming to a close, Stickland said. And if some conservative bills don’t begin to get serious consideration in committees and on the House floor, then Stickland and his band of right-wing conservative members will be calling out the House leadership, he said. “We are about to start cutting each other to shreds,” he said.

Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano echoed the sentiment as he joined Stickland in his office early Wednesday to show solidarity. “Conservative legislation might die,” he said, “but it’s not going to die quietly.”

Good times indeed.

Off the Kuff responds to Erin Meredith, a self-described 5th generation Republican voter who now has health insurance coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act.  Meredith considered the Act as  just another wasteful government handout, until she desperately needed coverage because of her family’s financial situation and a debilitating medical condition.  She asked Kuffner what might happen if the Supreme Court torpedoes Obamacare, wondering “if Greg Abbott, our governor, has any plan to offer something comparable?”

Kuffner delivers a dose of perhaps too harsh reality for a voter who has been duped into voting for a party that could not care less about the fate of her and her family.

Dear Erin Meredith,

The answer is no, he does not. Although this is the rare lawsuit against the Obama administration for which Greg Abbott is not among the plaintiffs, it is his fondest wish for Obamacare to die a bloody death, and if this lawsuit helps make that happen, then nothing will make him happier. If that means that you and your family will suffer as a result, well, that’s just too bad. Greg Abbott doesn’t care, and doesn’t have any intention of helping you. You’re on your own, as far as he’s concerned. Neither do Dan Patrick or Ken Paxton, and neither did Rick Perry while he was Governor. In fact, Rick Perry recently claimed that the reason people like you didn’t have health insurance before now is because that the way you wanted it. It’s his justification for why he never pushed to provide anything like the subsidies for insurance you now receive. Greg Abbott feels the same way. It’s your fault, and you don’t deserve any assistance for it.

Ouch!

Sen. Konni Burton (TP -Crazyville) has filed a bill that would create a new form of Texas municipality called a “Liberty City”.  Sounds great but let’s look at the details. At it’s core, a Liberty City would not be able to enact ordinances that would be unconstitutional – or at least not violate the Constitution according to Burton.  The specific references to the Bill of Rights include paraphrasing of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments.  Here is that section of the bill.

BILL OF RIGHTS OF A LIBERTY CITY

Article 1. The residents and governing body of a Liberty City recognize the fundamental natural rights of the people as protected and preserved by the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution. The governing body of this Liberty City shall not enact an ordinance, resolution, or similar measure, or take any action, that infringes on the basic absolute and essential rights of the people.

Article 2. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Article 3. The right of the people to freedom of speech, including political and nonpolitical expression, and of assembly shall not be infringed.

Article 4. The right of the people to practice the faith of their choosing and to worship in both public and private places shall not be infringed.

Article 5. The right of the people to be secure in their persons and their property from unreasonable searches, including the collection of data, surveillance, and forceful search methods, conducted by an officer of the municipality without warrant, shall not be infringed.

Article 6. The rule of lenity is to be enforced in all applicable municipal proceedings.

So Burton has taken it upon herself to re-write the Bill of Rights to her particular liking, including a prohibition on warrantless searches (in contravention of decades of Supreme Court law creating exceptions for warrantless searches) and the allowance of church services in public buildings (forget separation of church and state).

A Liberty City would also not be allowed to have zoning or any form of comprehensive municipal planning, and all taxes and bonds would have to be approved by a supermajority of voters.

Red predicts that this one ends up on the Legislative trash heap where all of Burton’s offerings belong.