U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has told a conservative conference that President Barack Obama is lawless, providing the conservative rhetoric that makes him so popular in his home state.

The conservative Republican laid out his reasoning for why he thinks the president is “dangerous and terrifying.”

According to the Statesman, Cruz also slammed the POTUS for what he referred to as a pattern of “lawlessness on a breathtaking scale.”

“We are a nation of laws and not men,” Cruz was additionally quoted as saying by the website. “If we had a system where a president can pick and choose what laws to follow at utter whim … that is seriously dangerous.”

The public policy conference at which he spoke was sponsored by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Minutes before his address, the organization posted a photograph of Cruz on their official Facebook page.

His address comes just one day after he released a statement on his official website that took aim at Obama’s “promise zone.”

“It’s altogether fitting that President Obama is … talking about income ine******y because income ine******y has increased dramatically as a direct result of his economic policies,” the statement reads. “Unfortunately, rather than stop Washington’s job-k*****g policies, President Obama proposes yet more government spending and debt.”

It concludes, “All of America needs to be a real ‘Promise Zone’ – with reduced barriers to small businesses creating private-sector jobs – and we should start by repealing every word of Obamacare, building the Keystone pipeline, abolishing the IRS, and rolling back abusive regulations.”

Cruz has garnered national attention by frequently condemning the Obama administration and the federal health care overhaul. In addition to calling for a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act, he said he would replace it with a conservative alternative that would expand health care coverage.

Cruz also criticized Obama for not enforcing drug laws in states that have legalized use of marijuana.

Finding the t***h is a process for me. I hope you don''t mind I share a milestone moment about this when I was in college.

My teacher cleared off his desk and placed on top of it a few items. One of the items was an empty mason jar. He proceeded to fill up the jar with golf balls until he could fit no more. He looked at the classroom and asked his students if they agree that the jar is full. Every student agreed that the jar was indeed full.

My teacher then picked up a box of small pebbles and poured them into the jar with the golf balls. The pebbles filled all of the openings in between the golf balls. He asked the students if the jar was full. Once again, they agreed.

My teacher picked up a bag of sand and poured it into the jar. The sand filled in all of the empty space left between the golf balls and pebbles. He asked the class again if the jar was full. The students agreed it was technically full.

My teacher pulled out two bottles of water from under his desk and poured both of them into the jar filling the empty space between the sand.

Finally, my teacher then put out a small box filled with an unknown content next to the apparently filled jar and asked his students, are you sure the jar is now full?

As we debate here in this forum, I often think of an the lesson my teacher taught me that day. Each time we believed the jar was full. Our perception and beliefs had lead us to a false belief or conclusion.

So as I consider something to be reported obviously true or common sense, I consider that the information given us could be incomplete and therefore wrong. Also, is it possible that we may never know the t***h about something because we may never know all the facts or possibilities?

True and the way they were able to do it was with one political party and government ownership of everything such as the newspapers, radio and tv. Here it is harder for those in power to get away with disinformation because you have the other party shouting, "You Lie" at the drop of a pin and investigative reporters vying for a Pulitzer for their employer or themselves so their agent can contract them out to the highest bidder as a news anchor or senior editor. That's part of the reason a capitalist economy ensures freedom and liberty over a Marxist one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ABBAsFernando, I totally agree with the absolute necessity to recognize the enemy before anything approaching a solution can be achieved. That is a given. What is ONE solution is to ask people to verbalize how and why they believe or think certain ways. I honestly believe that most thoughtful and most good Americans, when they see something they believe to be good, upon finding it is NOT good, change their minds. I use my own brain as the example. I readily admit that after 9/11 I had no problem with the Patriot Act, though I had been following politics for decades as a conservative. I found no problem with it because if one isn't plotting a severe something, one has nothing to worry about. Someone during that time said, "Yes, but what if the people in charge of it decide to use it in a sinister way?" I didn't believe that in America such could possibly take place.

I have come to see my lack of clear thought by virtue of all that has gone on since then, when government officials run rough shod over the justice system, the immigration system, the court system, the legislative system, etc. I am now totally and completely opposed to what is now happening, and believe the Patriot Act has played a big part in it. I don't believe it was designed that way, but looking back, I can now honestly say that OUR LEADERS SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT THAT WAY, AND EITHER DID NOT OR THEY LOOKED THE OTHER WAY. BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE DONE IMMEASURABLE HARM TO THE LIBERTIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone except the specific leaders who did the wrong thing, either deliberately or by not knowing better.