Thursday, November 12, 2015

"The Pundits Have It All Wrong. Ted Cruz Is a Real Threat For the Nomination."

"Cruz is hardly a cinch. Trump and especially Carson are significant obstacles for him in Iowa. His theory that he will inherit Trump and Carson’s support if the outsiders deflate is too simplistic since both Trump and Carson have appeal across the ideological spectrum of the GOP. So is his schematic of the Republican race as coming down to two candidates, one representing the conservatives (him) and someone representing the moderates. Nonetheless, it should be obvious to any fair observer that Cruz is a serious threat for the nomination. Be warned, and get over it."


Anonymous said...

The day he announced his run I said he will be the next the President. I say it over and over and people still try to disregard it. For better or worse, I still believe it to be true.

Is he the exception that proves the rule or is he just another in a long line of disappointments? I guess we are gonna find out. Those who doubt what is happening will find themselves "schocked" when he wins. All while some of said so all along.

The more things change the more they stay the same, I suppose.

Josh said...

Cruz and Trump both make me suspect they're rinos in tea party business suits.

WarriorClass III said...

"Secondly, I believe we should expand legal immigration, reduce the barriers, reduce the waiting periods and I've introduced two amendments to significantly expand legal immigration, to double the caps on legal immigration from 675,000 to 1.3 million and to increase temporary high skilled workers by 500%." - U. S. Senator Ted Cruz

Cruz is going to have to come way off his support for increased immigration for him to take the lead from Trump. In fact, he will have to reverse course altogether and start arguing for a moratorium on immigration, as well as a plan to deport the illegal aliens. That's the only way he'll trump Trump.

Anonymous said...

It's all over for Cruz;

Bob Dole Endorses Jeb Bush, and Knocks Ted Cruz

Anonymous said...

Of course, just as with Juan McLame, & the Halfrican, Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be president; not being the "natural born citizen" as required.

DAN III said...

Cruz is not natural born.

Anonymous said...

As you all know, though, a threat for the nomination does not equate to being electable in the general. Maybe quite the opposite in today's polarized politics.

0007 said...

I'd prefer Cruz to be Trump's first nominee to the SC.

Chiu ChunLing said...

We have to challenge the notion that "Natural Born Citizen" has more to do with geographic location at time of birth than with the legal status and national loyalties of the acknowledged parents.

If Cruz gets the nomination, I'll make that argument in his case, because a person born to parents who willingly accept the jurisdiction and authority of the U.S. Constitution under the Declaration of Independence is far more a natural born citizen than anyone born inside the territory of the U.S. (let alone anywhere else) to parents who reject and subvert the founding laws of our nation.

If it is true (as has been speculated) that Stanley Ann was engaged in international Communist activities outside the U.S. at the time Obama was born, then he wouldn't legally be a citizen at all on the facts of birth, let alone "Natural Born". But even if Stanley Ann weren't outside the U.S. at the time, that only changes the fact of legal citizenship by birth, it doesn't answer the question of whether Obama has native loyalty to America...which he clearly doesn't.

Ultimately, if we're going to accept the supremacy of geographic location at birth over all other considerations, then we cannot logically oppose "anchor babies" and all the attendant evils. And that I will not do. Citizenship is defined by much more than the location of an event you don't even remember which wasn't affected by any of your own choices anyway.

I mean, I was born in Washington D.C., that doesn't mean I love the Fed Gov unconditionally (I do miss the humidity, though).

Anonymous said...

"Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law,it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory
laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would
mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born
in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal
process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen....

Anonymous said...

Natural Born Citizen - One born on our soil to two American Citizens.
Citizen - One born her to only one Citizen parent or born here to Resident Aliens engaged in Naturalization process.
Naturalized Citizen - One born anywhere else and Naturalized by legislative means.
Dual Citizen - One born here to a Citizen of this country and a Foreign National, One born to two American Citizens in another country.

The Framers sought to protect the Office a the Presidency at the highest level possible, partly because they did not even want to HAVE a singular position with so much power. Dual Allegiance is the thing they aimed to protect against the most. That they HAD to issue a DATE as part of the document placing this barrier makes it UNDENIABLE that NBC was meant to be the hardest to comply with - so hard that they themselves could not qualify!!!

They exempted themselves because at that time, NOBODY could qualify.

NBC is born here, on this soil, to two Citizen parents. Less than that is still properly "birthright" Citizenship but those are - as painful as it is to accept- different levels of Citizenship.

The office of the President is the ONLY thing subject to this level of degree of Citizenship. It was done that way on purpose to protect what the Founders saw as as close to a King as they wanted to get. DANGEROUS that, as they saw presciently. Limiting that office to the smallest and "most" American Citizens possible was chosen as a means of protecting that office.

Ted Cruz, fair enough through no fault of his own, is no more qualified than Obama. Borth certificate ya say? Fake, eh? That is a diversion yall. Obama's claimed FATHER was NEVER a Citizen and THAT is why Obama is ineligible. Yall got snookered. Cruz was, and he admitted it, a DUAL Citizen. Something the Founders openly rejected as not qualified - and for very good reason.

It is too bad really. Cruz WILL be President, mark my word, and he may even do great things for this country. but the truth is the Founders would not have approved of it.

Anonymous said...

Clearly, the original intent was born within the US - not territories, not rental areas(Panama) not overseas military bases, and certainly not parental intent or wishful thinking. And for good reason - one need only recall the disastrous presidency of Alberto Fujimori in Peru, he being a Japanese citizen who scampered back to Japan avoiding indictment.

And, it suppresses logic and reason to presume that hewing to original intent regarding "natural born" somehow has anything to do whatsoever with "anchor babies".

The "anchor babies" is the result of a flawed scotus interpretation of the 14th amendment; that amendment having been passed and ratified illegally.

CONgress still possesses the authority to make immigration and naturalization law, it lacks only the will.

DAN III said...

Look at the Naturalization Act of 1790. It specifically defines "natural born". soetoro-obama is Constitutionally illegiti,ate and a criminal for the fraud perpetrated on Amerikans. Hell, everyone's neocon, Bill O'Reilly proclaimed Barry legitimate just this past week, arguing the illegal Indonesian/Kenyan was norn in Hawaii. O'Reilly ignored tje natural born argument.

soetoro-obama, Cruz, Rubio and those who support these frauds are as responsible for the fraud they've endorsed as the courts, who have protected soeroro-obama using the no standing argument.

Benjamin Kerndt said...

so, not that it matters, do we vote for Jeb! then? Trump? trump is slick willies less honest cousin. Jeb wants to be obama 2. what does it hurt to vote for cruz? will it hurt more if he lies to us more than those who openly admit they hate us? lets get behind a 3rd party candidate, then. libertarian? constitution? pick one. any one. the borders are important, trump knows this, but if he were to actually win? "sorry, i was mistaken, ive evolved on that issue." maybe ive been bamboozled, and ted cruz will reverse all his positions if he gets elected, but then so will the rest of them. cruz vs obama as Nbc? id take cruz every time. and the potus being a NBC doesnt matter to the collectivists, as has been proven, so, new normal, right? would the founders have been more in favor of cruz or obama? i wouldnt trust my own wife in the presidency, she does believe in the second amendment at least, otherwise id have put the business end in my mouth by now. but hey, i hear romney might throw his hat in the ring, good times, right?

please forgive my cynicism, i understand your comments, and the need to be correct. but being correct and have Hillary or Bernie as prez works the same as being correct and having obama as prez and bonehead and mconnell running the show. we can vote for the unknowns where we dont know what will happen, or we can vote for the floggings to continue. worst case, the worst happens, and hillary or jeb do what they are telling us they will do. best case, those who have not been proven to be liars, are proved not to be liars. or niether, and they start shooting. its a zero sum game for us... for them, win or lose they dont care, they still be makin money and livin large. or so they think.

Anonymous said...


An excellent question, easily answered:

None of the above.

Voting for the lesser of two, or nine evils is Still Endorsing Evil, while expecting good to somehow spontaneously erupt from same.

It has not worked.

It will never work.

It is a con game, designed to distract and subvert. And it works just as intended.