Thanks for posting. I first want to say that RARELY have a heard a Senator's speech touch on economic freedom as the main driver in reducing overall poverty in a nation. He states it several times. Bravo! However, I wanted to point out out some fundamental differences between Senator Cruz's understanding of liberty and the role of govt and Objectivism.
1."The first is that our rights come not from kings or queens—or even from presidents—but from God. As the Declaration of Independence put it, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
If the framers had wanted to make the case that God granted us freedom, they would have said God. By use of the word Creator, we are left with somewhat of a metaphorical interpretation. This was done on purpose. Here is what Galt said:

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."
2.men are not angels therefore they need govt to control the governed and also to control itself.
Man is innately good. If the premise begins with "man is no angel" it assumes that man acting in his self interest is de facto evil. If all men in a nation were "angels" they would still have disputes that needed to be arbitrated, they would still desire protection from outside threats.
Also from Galt's speech:
"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

It was good. Worth the time to read it.

I read this myself, and wanted to post it, but you beat me to it! It was a good read.

That last earthquake was Ayn Rand rolling over in her grave. Touting conservatives for their out-of-context lip-service is not an objective appraisal either of their own ideas or the issues of the day that they seek to address. Do they ever recommend getting rid of the contradictions in the Constitution? Do they recognize any?

I have to agree with khalling and withhold a yea-say. At Hillsdale: "The first is that our rights come not from kings or queens—or even from presidents—but from God." If he had said "natural rights" he would have made the same point, but, smart as he seems to be about intellectual history, he chose his words to express his thoughts.

Also --
During a speech at the National Right to Life convention on Friday, pro-life Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said Democrats in the Senate don’t really care that abortionists like Kermit Gosnell kill babies in what is essentially infanticide.

Cruz opened by thanking pro-life advocates for their efforts.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/28/ted-c...

Those of us that know the history of Hillsdale College knows how Ted Cruz came to be asked to give this address, and why his words were so well received. A unique college deserves equally unique guest speakers.

The rest of the nation's universities are fighting to book the remaining SDS and Weather Underground survivors.