Ted Cruz: American people want to protect traditional marriage

Progressives claim that the American people fully support gay marriage, but is there something else at play? Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz believes the evidence shows that people vote at the ballot box to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman. During an interview with Glenn, Sen. Cruz explained why he believes marriage is a question left to the states, not the federal government.

Below is a transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Sure. Let’s start here because you have an interesting view of the Supreme Court. I’m so tempted to ask you if you think John Roberts has ever been blackmailed by somebody in the NSA because I don’t understand his rulings lately, but I won’t go down that road. What I would like to know is as a guy who has argued in front of the Supreme Court, has worked in the Supreme Court, we are off the Constitution, making it up as they go along now, right?

Sen. Cruz: That is absolutely right.

Glenn: The ruling on ObamaCare, I can’t even fathom. They used to say—correct me if I’m wrong, not an attorney—didn’t they used to say you got that wrong, send it back, do it right, and then bring it to us, right?

Sen. Cruz: That is exactly right. When the rulings came out last week, I commented publicly that these are some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.

Glenn: I agree.

Sen. Cruz: The entire liberal media went apoplectic with that comment. They said darkest, what about 9/11? What about Pearl Harbor?

Glenn: This is the end of the Constitution.

Sen. Cruz: Within 24 hours, on Thursday, six justices ignored federal law, rewrote ObamaCare, literally took out an eraser, erased key portions of the bill in order to force that failed law on millions of Americans, and then on Friday, five justices ignored the Constitution and declared the authority to rewrite marriage, to strike down the marriage laws in all 50 states.

Glenn: So help me out on this because I think there’s a lot of people, especially the millennials, that they’re like cool with look, it’s about love, it’s about love. I’ve tried to explain my daughter, and she gets it now that she’s been watching, but she came to me, and she’s like dad, it’s about love. I said if it was about love, I’d be totally cool, I’d be totally cool. God tells me no, but that’s not my job to judge them. I can’t change their behavior, so I’d be totally cool. It’s about changing and dismantling almost everything in our society. She now sees what is happening along the way. Explain to people that might be thinking who are you, Ted Cruz, to judge me?

Sen. Cruz: Well look, you are right, this is hand-in-hand with a concerted assault on religious liberty and a concerted assault on the Judeo-Christian values this country was built on.

Glenn: I’ve heard them, they tell you it’s absolutely not.

Sen. Cruz: Well, they will say that, but the facts speak otherwise. Let’s begin with one of the premises that they repeat over and over again. They say the American people want this, and they point to poll after poll that show percentages of Americans who want this. They point to millennials, and say millennials want this. You know, it’s very easy to design a poll to get the result you want, and there are a lot of advocates here. We are seeing a propaganda effort from the mainstream media and from Hollywood.

I can give you two facts that are counter to the notion that the American people want this. Number one, 40 states, 4-0, have passed either laws or constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. When it goes to the ballot box, the people vote very differently from what the Hollywood advocates claim the American people want. A few years ago, the state of California, not a conservative state, bright blue, liberal California voted on marriage, and a majority of Californians voted for protecting traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

You know who voted overwhelmingly for that? Hispanics and African-Americans, so this notion that gets repeated every day on the mainstream media is baloney. This is they’re attempting—if it were true that the American people wanted this, there would be no need for a court case because they could win at the ballot box. They’re doing this because they haven’t been winning at the ballot box.

Glenn: It’s not about that. Your opposition to this is not about gay marriage. One of your big funders as a senator, if you don’t mind me saying, is Peter Thiel. He’s a libertarian, gay guy.

Sen. Cruz: Yes.

Glenn: You’re friends. You went to college together.

Sen. Cruz: My touchstone has always been the Constitution. Under the Constitution, marriage has been a question for the states.

Glenn: Is marriage a human right itself? Traditional marriage, is that in the Constitution? Is that a protected right?

Sen. Cruz: The human rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but when it comes to how marriage is designed—you know, when I talk with proponents of gay marriage, I say listen, you and I can disagree perhaps as a policy matter whether gay marriage is a good idea. I say to folks who advocate gay marriage, we can disagree on that, and reasonable minds can differ. I strongly support traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but we can have a reasonable debate about that. Under the Constitution, there is an avenue to seek to change the marriage laws in your state, which is to convince your fellow citizens we should change the laws. Now, you’ve got to win the argument.

Glenn: But you know that that would break down across state lines. I move, and then I’m not going to recognize, etc., etc.

Sen. Cruz: But Glenn, it hasn’t. We’ve had right now unelected judges have torn down the marriage laws in some states, so right now today the law is that there are gay marriages in some states. In other states, like the state of Texas, there are not. It has worked perfectly fine. I’ll tell an interesting story. So, a little over a year ago, I was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, utterly surreal, by the way, to be on The Tonight Show. You’re like what on earth am I doing here?

First question Jay asked, it’s Hollywood, he says okay, you’re a Republican. Gay marriage, why do you hate gay people? My response, I said listen, Jay, I believe in traditional marriage, but I’m a constitutionalist. The Constitution leaves this as questions for the states. If the people of California decide to adopt one definition of marriage, they have the prerogative to debate that and do that, but if the people of other states, like my home state of Texas, decide to protect traditional marriage under the Constitution, that’s their prerogative. You know the interesting thing, Glenn, the studio audience in Burbank, California, burst into applause. Jay did a double take. Wait, you’re a conservative Republican. You’re not supposed to get applause from a California audience.

Glenn: So, here’s the thing, my solution to this has been it’s not a federal thing at all because of the Tenth Amendment. It’s not. You say give it to the states. But why is it even in the states? Why do we even have to have that? Isn’t it a contract between me, my spouse, and who’s marrying me? Why not just end it entirely? Because it seems to me what they’ve done is now made this a civil right, constitutional civil right, which now puts all of our churches and all of our schools and everybody else in line for massive litigation.

Sen. Cruz: Well listen, the problem with that is that the government and the courts have always played a role. Whenever you have marriages, you’re going to have divorces. When you have divorces, you’re going to have to dispose of property. Even more importantly, you have children, you’ve got parental visitation, you’ve got custody. Those are questions that under our legal system are going to have to be decided, and the government can’t totally wash its hands of that. If you look at the origins of marriage, marriage long preceded the United States of America. It wasn’t the Constitution that invented marriage or the Declaration or the Supreme Court. For millennia, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman.

Glenn: Church.

Sen. Cruz: It was ordained by God. It was designed, I believe, to reflect the relationship of Christ and the church, and it was designed for the raising of children. So, there is an inherent role when it comes to kids and if a marriage breaks up what to do with the kids that the state can’t wash its hands of. I will say this, the next major battlefield will be religious liberty, and it’s already Christians are being persecuted. People of faith are being persecuted for following biblical teachings.

Glenn: So then let me go there because I think there is a massive wake-up coming. Let me ask you this as a question. If the Christians and people of faith, the Jews, everybody who practices real religion, are we done if they don’t wake up and stand up now?

Sen. Cruz: If people of faith do not stand up in this next election, I fear the greatest nation in the history of the world will be lost.

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.