Ted Cruz pledges to rescind every illegal executive action taken by President Obama

August 21, 2015

WRITER

Ted Cruz joined Glenn on radio today, where he took a moment to list the five things he plans on doing the first day in office if elected. First, he'll take President Obama’s executive actions to task. Next, he'll open an investigation into Planned Parenthood.

By the end, Glenn seemed even more impressed with Cruz than he was before.

Here's the full list in Cruz's own words:

1. Rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

2. Instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, into these horrific videos, and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization and its employees.

3. Instruct the Department of Justice, the IRF, and every federal agency, that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. Instead of the federal government violating and persecuting our religious liberties, the federal government will defend the Bill of Rights and our religious liberty.

4. Rip to shred this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal, which is the single greatest national security threat facing America.

5. Begin the process of moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capitol of Israel.

Listen to the full segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Ted Cruz, presidential candidate and senator from the great state of Texas is on the phone with us now from Iowa or Idaho or one of those I states. I'm not sure.

PAT: Illinois -- something.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Ted. How are you, sir?

TED: Well, thank you, Glenn. Great to be with you. Always cool, but I don't think I've heard a cooler show intro than, I just got a call from Chuck Norris.

GLENN: And he'll have to --

TED: You're living the life, man. You're living the life.

GLENN: I know. I know. And he'll have to kick your ass if you get out of line, I just want you to know.

So, Ted, first of all, I want to thank you for the support for Birmingham. And thank your father for being there. And you're a little busy doing something, I don't know. But we thank you for all the support you've shown us. And I know that you care desperately about these topics. You only have ten minutes. I want to talk to you real quick on one thing that is really bothering Pat a big deal. He wants to play a piece of audio from you and then see how you -- where you stand. Because we have two differing Ted Cruz -- I don't think they're differing, he does. Listen.

TED: I have spent my professional career defending the Constitution. I served five and a half years as the Solicitor General of Texas, the Chief Lawyer for the state of Texas in front of the US Supreme Court, and I've repeatedly defended the Constitution.

The 14th amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I've looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good.

As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it's in the US Constitution.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Now, you've also said this.

PAT: That you are absolutely opposed to birthright citizenship.

GLENN: Help me out on that. Which is it?

TED: Well, sure. Both of those comments are entirely consistent. And what I said, that first recording you played, it's from 2011. In 2011, at the time -- and that's just a little segment, but at that time I said publicly I was opposed to birthright citizenship. In fact, I said in writing in 2011 when I was running for the Senate, that I was opposed to birthright citizenship. And the reason is simple: It doesn't make any sense. It's bad public policy.

GLENN: It was for slaves.

TED: That we would incentivize and reward people coming here illegally by giving their children automatic citizenship. So that has been my position today. It was my position yesterday. It will be my position tomorrow. That, as a public policy matter, birthright citizenship doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: Explain what you said then about the Constitution.

TED: There is the separate legal question about how you change that policy. And among constitutional scholars, there is a good-faith legal debate. Some constitutional scholars argue that you need a constitutional amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship. Other constitutional scholars argue that Congress could change it through a statute. There are arguments on both sides.

What I was addressing there is that if it goes through a constitutional amendment -- constitutional amendment takes many, many years. It's a long, delayed process. And so what I was saying there in the rest of that interview is, we need to solve the crisis of illegal immigration now, today. Not five years or ten years from now. And the way to do that is secure the border today. And indeed, in January 2017, if I'm elected president, on the first days in office, the administration will finally begin securing the border, enforcing the law, stopping illegal immigration. That we can do now. I still support pursuing either a statute or a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. But that is a slow and long-term process. It's not something that can be done quickly. And we need to solve this problem quickly.

GLENN: I'm sorry, Pat. I just wanted to say, I didn't hear exactly what you said off the air just a minute ago. What was that, that you said?

PAT: I said that's the explanation you gave.

GLENN: Yes, that they are not -- that's two separate arguments.

PAT: But I wanted it hear it from Ted. Because one of the things that we love so much about you, Senator Cruz, is that you're so consistent and so good on so many issues. In fact, I don't know a single issue on which I disagree with you. So...

GLENN: Would you like to make out with the man right now?

PAT: Almost. I'm pretty close to that, and you know it.

But what's so great is that you've got an -- whenever something like an inconsistency seems to arise, you usually have -- well, always, that I've heard, a good explanation for it.

But the other thing is, I wanted to ask you really quick, because we hear this so often from -- it seems that virtually every conservative really likes you. Really -- in fact, they want to make out with you like I do.

But what we hear so often is, I really like Ted Cruz, but. How do you address that with people? How do you get them to understand?

GLENN: May I rephrase your question? Ted, tell me what your first week in office, what are the things you do?

TED: Well, on the very first day in office, I had pledged to do five things.

The first thing I intend to do is to rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

PAT: Love that.

GLENN: And Bush?

TED: Sure. Although, Obama will take a good chunk of the deck.

GLENN: Yes. All right. Okay.

(laughter)

TED: The second thing that I intend to do is instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, into these horrific videos, and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization and its employees.

The third thing I intend to do on the first day in office is instruct the Department of Justice, the IRF, and every federal agency, that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. Instead of the federal government violating and persecuting our religious liberties, the federal government will defend the Bill of Rights and our religious liberty.

The fourth thing I intend to do on the first day in office is rip to shred this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal, which is the single greatest national security threat facing America.

And the fifth thing I intend to do in office, on the first day in office, is begin the process of moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capitol of Israel.

GLENN: I've heard people say that that's not a big deal. To me, that's a huge deal. Explain why that's so important.

TED: Well, it is a huge deal because Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. And we refuse to put our embassy there in an effort to nod to the Arab countries in the Middle East that dispute Israel's right to exist. And it is simply giving in to the radical Islamists who want to destroy Israel. And under federal law -- Congress passed a law providing that the embassy be moved to Jerusalem. But every president has issued a waiver, and the law has a presidential waiver built into it.

And here's one thing that I think is really striking on this point. Many presidential candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, have made the same promise I did, which is to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and when they get to the White House, their national security teams tell them, well, gosh, a bunch of the other folks in the Middle East will be really mad at you if you do that, and they don't follow through.

And, Glenn, Pat, I think the single biggest difference between me and the other very fine gentlemen who were standing on that debate stage in Cleveland, is that with me, when I tell you I will do something, I'm going to do exactly what I said I'm going to do.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: You've proven that.

GLENN: So let me ask you this, because I know you have to run. But we have Johnnie Moore with us on next hour. We had Kayla Mueller, a US aid worker who was held as a sex slave by al-Baghdadi in just a horrific thing. It's clear the administration knew that -- there's no way they didn't know this was happening. Al-Baghdadi did it for a reason.

We haven't really said anything about it. Meantime, Johnnie Moore, I'm raising money right now to try to get the Christians out of the Middle East, get them out of that situation and come into the United States. The United States of America has blocked anybody coming in as Christian from the Middle East. They are not accepting them. We have Mexico that will accept them. We have Poland that will accept them. I think we have Latvia that will accept them. We won't accept them. Will you as president, stand up for the Christians and the Muslims that aren't Muslim enough and the homosexuals that are being killed in the Middle East and allow them to come here and stop giving preferential treatment to Muslims?

TED: Absolutely, yes. And we need a president who will call evil by its name. Right now, we have a president and an administration that refuses to even utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." ISIS is the face of evil. They are crucifying Christians, they are beheading children, they are using rape, forcible rape as an instrument of terror. And it is -- and they are murdering Christians, they are murdering Jews, they are murdering other Muslims who don't embrace their radical jihad. And right now, this administration refuses to acknowledge the enemy.

Glenn, if I'm elected president, every radical militant across the face of the globe will know, if you join ISIS, if you take up arms and wage jihad against the United States of America, then you are signing your death warrant.

Right now, under the Obama administration, ISIS believes they're winning. And they're winning because this administration is not fighting a real war. It is not using military power to defeat ISIS.

GLENN: No, no. Ted, we're running seven airstrikes a day. Seven.

TED: And in contrast, do you know how many airstrikes a day we ran during the first Persian Gulf War?

GLENN: No.

TED: About 1100. 1,100 a day.

GLENN: Jeez. In a much smaller area. In a much smaller area.

TED: Yes. This is -- we have a commander-in-chief who is not attempting to defeat our enemies. Indeed, the policies of this administration are weakness and appeasement. We see this with the Iranian nuclear deal, where the administration wants to send billions of dollars to Iran, which would make the Obama administration the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. It is unacceptable.

And I do have to tell you, tonight, in Des Moines, Iowa, we have a rally for religious liberty. And one of the people that will be there is Naghmeh Abedini, the wife of Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. He's an American citizen, a Christian pastor. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for preaching the gospel. We're going to have heroes from across the country who have stood for their faith and have been persecuted for religious liberty. It's at 6:30 p.m. Friday night in Des Moines, Iowa. Anyone can find that information about it at TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org.

The Newsboys, the terrific Christian pop band, is going to be playing in concert. I would encourage folks who are nearby Des Moines to join us. And you can watch it live stream online at TedCruz.org. Standing for religious liberty here and across the world.

PAT: Too bad there's no where I can contribute to your campaign if somebody really wanted to.

GLENN: It's going to be another year of this.

PAT: Where would you be able to do that if you really liked everything you just said and you didn't know where to go, what would you do?

TED: You know, funny we should ask. We've had 25,000 contributions at TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org.

And, Glenn, every time I go on your show, your listeners are incredible because they light up the internet with contributions at TedCruz.org. And it's what's giving us such incredible momentum on this campaign. Thank you.

GLENN: Ted, I will tell you that this audience loves you. We do a poll every month, and you've been number one in the poll every single time. You're dirt strong with this audience.

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: And they love you. They love you. Thank you so much, Ted.

TED: Thank you. God bless. Keep speaking the truth, my friend.

GLENN: You got it. Ted Cruz.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.