Much is made of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president, given the fact he was born in Canada. Much less is made of some of his comments last month.
Newsmax TV reports: “Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tells Newsmax TV that he would not be violating his Christian faith if, as president, he follows up on his promise to ‘carpet bomb’ Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists. ‘Let's be clear, the Bible says, 'Thou shalt not murder,' which is different from 'Thou shalt not kill,'’’ Cruz told Hard Line host Ed Berliner in an interview originally aired last month. "And defending yourself is an obligation of any president. It is not murder.
"When you have the face of evil that has declared war . . . then it is the essence of duty to defend your nation, to defend the innocent," Cruz said. "When it comes to jihadists, they have declared war on us, and that's what President Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to acknowledge.”
Cruz is right about President Obama and Hillary Clinton. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, we cannot expect a Democratic president to defend us against Islam. Democrats won’t even acknowledge that Islam is at war with us; so how can we expect them to use military force to defeat ISIS, or Iran? Particularly when these Democrats are not fans of the military in the first place?
As for Cruz’ distinction between “murder” and “killing,” I sure hope he can do better when debating the Democratic nominee this fall if he becomes the Republican nominee. To make a distinction between “murder” and “killing” seems absurd, if not downright silly. It’s OK to kill Islamic jihadists, so long as we don’t murder them? Seriously? He’s going to have to come up with something better than that.
Personally, I could not care less what the Bible does or does not say on the subject. I am certain, with or without biblical backing, that the United States has every moral right to defend itself.
All I care about is that America survives the greatest threat to its existence since Nazism and communism. I’m gratified that Ted Cruz seems determined to blast our enemies to bits. But his equivocation on “murder” versus “killing” worries me. It signals uncertainty. ISIS suffers from no such equivocation. It’s either us or them.
Either we submit, or die. Period. They started this war; they are the ones who will keep it going. The only rational response? Use every bit of force we’ve got until they’re gone.
It’s a basic principle of human psychology: When your enemy knows you’re weak, it emboldens him. Today’s warfare has as much to do with public relations and social media as it has to do with guns. ISIS, while evil, is not stupid; they watch for contradictions or confusion. The reason they’re currently winning? Because Americans have repeatedly elected people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who respond to our enemies with bribes, treaties and sensitivity lectures for non-Muslims.
After years of weakness against Islamic terrorism, the prospect of a principled and consistent president who’s willing to go all the way is the only hope we have for survival.
As much as we cannot afford to elect Hillary Clinton to continue our suicidal foreign policy, we likewise cannot afford a Republican who speaks a tough game but in the end will undermine himself with his own internal contradictions. Case in point: George W. Bush.
It’s not just about carpet bombing or the choice of weaponry. It’s about America’s right to exist. It’s about the right of people to live under the separation of church and state, no matter how much this may enrage some Muslims.
The Islamic terrorists are the murderers and the killers, not us. Any ensuing bloodshed is on them, not us.
Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D., LCSW is a psychotherapist and author with a private practice in coastal Delaware. He is the author of “Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (and How to Tell the Difference).” For more of his reports, Go Here Now.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.