Why Ted Cruz is Weak on Terrorism

While, in my opinion, Ted Cruz is the greatest senator to grace the senate in at least a generation, Ted is weak on terrorism.

This accusation will surprise Ted and his supporters. Indeed, Ted recently affirmed, “ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism will face no more determined foe than I will be.” I do think that Ted is an honest man and truly meant these words, but Ted does not understand the basis for his weakness.

Ted is also representative of the other Republicans. Except for Trump and maybe Dr. Carson, all the other candidates are probably even weaker on terrorism than Ted. So by focusing on Ted, we can likewise see the weakness on terrorism manifest in all the other candidates.

Trending: Evidence that Andrew Breitbart May Have Been Murdered to Conceal #Pizzagate

Ted Made the Right Observation

take our poll - story continues below

Would You Vote for Trump If He Runs In 2024?

  • Would You Vote for Trump If He Runs In 2024?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

We begin by quoting Ted:

“One of the things we’ve seen here is how easy it is for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to get distracted from dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. They won’t even call it by its name.”

My key point here is NOT that our enemy is “radical Islamic terrorism” (it is not). Rather, the key point is the need for defining our enemy is of the highest priority.

If America’s enemy was as Ted believes it is, then Ted would be at the top of the polls. At the last Republican debate, the term “radical Islamic terror” was used a total of 16 times. Ted accounts for 13 of these treasonous utterances. Ironically the frequency of Ted’s use of the remark above is likely part of what Ted would point at to justify his remark that “ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism will face no more determined foe than [Ted] will be.” And so it is our hope that by correcting Ted, that Ted will soon clearly perform the task of accurately defining America’s terrorist enemy.

Ted’s Wrong Answer

With the phrase, “radical Islamic terrorism,” Ted implies that terrorism is a fringe part of Islam or even that terrorism is not Islamic at all. Ted implies that the meat of Islam—as opposed to the “radical” part of Islam—is free from terror. And this is Ted’s fatal mistake.

If Ted is going to run around the country waging ideological warfare against radical Islam, then Ted needs to perform the research for the sophomoric Bush–Obama thesis and declare to America how it is that Mohammad, the best example for all Muslims, was a man of peace and against terrorism. Further, before Ted utters “radical Islamic terrorism” again, Ted should debate Ali Sina and claim the $50,000.00 reward for proving that Mohammad was not a terrorist.

But good luck with that Ted. Many Imams, who are well–studied in Islam and in the extant Arabic Islamic texts, have failed to better Sina in this debate. You can access the debates yourself.

So, to be clear, I parallel Ted’s remarks, and say about Ted:

One of the things we’ve seen here is how easy it is for Republicans like Ted Cruz to get distracted from dealing with Islamic terrorism and Mohammad. He won’t even call America’s threats by its name.

Ted’s Way Forward

In order of importance and in chronological order, here are some statements that Republicans need to make:

  1. “[I am] calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,”
  2. Don’t Just Kill ISIS… Kill Their Whole Families” Absolutely. And dig up the graves of Sayeed Rizwan Farook, his pig wife Tashfeen Malik, and pour pig’s blood on their corpses. And then think about doing the same for their lying accomplice Imam. How could Muslims—without exposing their kinship with terrorism—be unsupportive of such a course?
  3. America needs to understand if Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, was a terrorist. We need to have an open debate about this important question.
  4. If Mohammad was a terrorist, then all Muslims would be doctrinal terrorists.
  5. Doctrinal terrorists are those individuals most likely to become operational Islamic terrorists.
  6. It cannot be a part of US immigration policy to admit doctrinal terrorists into our borders.
  7. Political candidates who are afraid to ask “Was Mohammad was a terrorist?” do not take seriously their oath “to protect and defend the Constitution.” When was the last time you heard any of my opponents ask this question to the public?
  8. We need to stop granting 501(c)3 status—and the attendant political and moral cover, as well as the economic benefits—to institutions that support sexual slavery (Koran 4:3, 24, 33:50) or deny the self-evidence that all men are created equal (e.g., Koran 9:29, the Jizya tax) or jihad (Koran 9:5) or prohibit the legal punishment for the vigilante murder of apostates (Bukhari 9.84.57). I don’t think our tax dollars should be us to pay for, or subsidize, terrorism against us.
  9. America has had enough of phony political leaders who declare that “The US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam,” but who then do not provide a systematic analysis of the many morally atrocious or questionable deeds of Mohammad. Because it seems to me that if Mohammad was a terrorist, then Islam could really be at war with the entire civilized world. And if Islam is at war with America, America needs to defend herself and go to war against Islam.
  10. Anyone who can disprove that Mohammad was not a terrorist will win $50,000.00. And I will put a million dollars of my own money as an additional prize to such an individual.
  11. Since Mohammad was a terrorist, all Muslims are doctrinal terrorists. (Note the distinction from statement 4)
  12. A primary focus of our foreign policy needs to help the Muslim on the streets in the Middle East to be able to question Mohammad as one under moral law and not as one above moral law.
  13. It is far superior to drain the swamp of the ideology of terrorism than to carpet bomb Islamic lands. We need to respect the moral and rational faculties of the Islamic people and use these gifts to help persuade them to leave a terrorist ideology. If we end the ideological disease that is eating at people, then we no longer need to take weapons against the victims of this disease.
  14. I am tired of American politicians who treat Muslims as morally handicapped people, as people who are unable to consider the moral conduct of an historical figure. I treat Muslims with respect. I treat Muslims as moral adults.

Fortunately, one candidate, Donald Trump, has already uttered part of the first two phrases.

But the advances made by the above statements can be undone by careless remarks whose implications might contradict the true terrorist nature of Islam. For example, such remark could ascribe the terror-aspects of Islam to a fringe Islam, instead of to the mean of Islam, and would serve to destroy the coherency of the above points. Mohammad defines Islam. If Mohammad was a terrorist, Islam is a terrorist religion. To instead describe the fringe aspect of Islam as the terror part, would thus exculpate Islam and Mohammad.

Almost seven years into his presidency Obama seems to have had a staged grand awaking. Perhaps a few of the over 27,000 documented Islamic murderous attacks since 9/11 are not mere entries on a website, but a reflection of reality. Just so, Obama made a remark intimating about terroristic “interpretations [of Islam].” Yet all four historic schools of Sunni jurisprudence affirm the “interpretations” made in statement 8 above. Indeed the “interpretations” are so unambiguous that they are perspicacious. For an American politician to imply that Islamic terror is an artifact of Islam—instead of an organic piece—is to murder history, violate the spirit of the above points and provide “aid and comfort” to America’s greatest foreign threat.

What is the Oath of Greatest Priority to our Politicians?

If one were to ask publically any of our nationally elected politicians, “What is the greatest oath you have to guide your acts as a public servant?” nearly all would say, “To protect and defend the Constitution.”

Yet, if history teaches anything, it is that in addition to his words, a politician must be judged by his actions.

If Mohammad is the soul of modern terrorism, and if terrorism is America’s greatest external threat, then for politicians to fail to publically ask, “Was Mohammad a Terrorist?” is to give “protecting and defending the moral image of Mohammad” greater weight than “protecting and defending the Constitution.”

And if this is not treason, then the word has lost all meaning.

And by this metric, does the US have even a single nationally elected politician who gives top priority to his most important oath?

In this context, I note that Obama’s most adamant foreign policy remark is “The US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.” Truly this Obama is evil.

The Dehumanizing Scourge of Political Correctness

It is not a sign of cultural health when the most pertinent questions are verboten. For example, join Quora, the site whose self–declared mission is to “share and grow the world’s knowledge.”

“We want to democratize access to knowledge of all kinds—from politics to painting, cooking to coding, etymology to experiences—so if someone out there knows something, anyone else can learn it,” the site adds. “Quora makes it easy to get your questions answered, share your own knowledge, and browse the most interesting information people across the world want to share.”

Ask the question, “Was Mohammad a Terrorist?” and your response will be something like:

You are receiving this message because some anonymous activity (Was Mohammad a terrorist?) linked to your account is in violation of Quora’s Be Nice, Be Respectful policy (See What is Quora’s “Be Nice, Be Respectful” policy?) and/or indicates intent to detract from Quora as collaborative and reusable resource.

Click on the link and one learns that “This question has been removed.” Verboten.

Pity that asking morally–rooted questions about how we are being herded is verboten.

Pity that with Obama‘s open anti–Americanism the U.N. extoled protecting Islam from moral scrutiny over the unalienable right to the freedom of political speech.

The Closing Golden American Bully Pulpit Remark

After booming the above questions and statements, a real American statesman will have just one more statement, which I can see, left to deliver.

To ask every Muslim parent to:

  • express shame to God for blindly following the teachings of their parents and culture instead of subscribing to a reasoned and moral approach to metaphysical discovery
  • apologize to the world, and especially Israel, for their genocidal wishes for the most free nation in the Middle East, Israel
  • apologize to the world for Islam’s partnership with Hilter and the Nazis to kill Jews
  • apologize to their children for teaching them that a book which celebrates

as holy and good.

This presidential statement should be closed with the following:

“I ask you to do this not only for the sake of

  • other Muslims that you have injured by the teachings of Mohammad
  • various infidel groups that Islam has expressed hostility toward
  • yourself. By apologizing to other humans you humanize yourself and separate yourself from the dehumanizing of Islam that has held you hostage.”


While world peace will never be total, significant advancements in world peace can be made. I argued for a solution rooted in Natural Law. Natural Law humanizes us. Natural Law provided the only sane resolution to prosecuting Nazi war crimes. While not without initial psychological pain for both Muslims and Multiculturalists, the Natural Law proposal herein edifies both Muslims and non-Muslims. The proposal herein does not focus on “carpet bombing” or other such tactics of last resort. While surely bombing and bullets are necessary, it should be emphasized that if the bully pulpit can accomplish the same ends as bombs and bullets, it is much more preferable to use such diplomatic methods. Clear the world of Islam and you will virtually clear the world of terrorism. Yet unfortunately both Islam and Multiculturalism forbid this most humane method for dealing with Mohammadians and Mohammadianism.

Ted Cruz has been one of the few Republicans willing to fight against Democrats. Yet if Ted is going to agree with Democrats that “Islam is NOT the problem”—or equivalently, that the problem is “radical Islamic terrorism” or that the Constitution’s religious freedom clause mandates accepting Islam as a religion in the USthen Ted cannot provide real leadership.

Ted, do not use the term “radical Islam.” Do not create your own fictitious “Islam” according to your radical imperialistic multicultural religious views. Perform an objective study of Islamic texts and you will see that terrorism is not a distortion of Islam, but its very fabric.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like
Previous What Really Happened In 2015, And What Is Coming In 2016…
Next Why Has America Lost Her Way?

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.