Reince Priebus on Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president: No comment

posted at 4:01 pm on January 11, 2016 by Allahpundit

The chairman of the Republican Party can’t offer an opinion on whether he thinks the frontrunner in Iowa is eligible to be president?

A topic in the news today: Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Is he constitutionally eligible to be President?

Listen, I don’t get involved. I’m not going to get in the middle of all these candidate issues. It’s a bad place for me to be. I’ll let all these folks argue about this stuff, and I’m going to stay out of it.

That’s interesting because, as Drew McCoy noted earlier on Twitter, Priebus was willing to vouch for Obama’s natural-born status when he was asked about it four years ago, the last time Trump had a Birther spasm over a political opponent. If he’s agnostic now, why wasn’t he agnostic then? The difference this time, it’ll be argued, is that defending Cruz’s eligibility would involve him in a dispute in a Republican primary, which would provoke howls from Trump fans/Cruz opponents of establishment interference. But c’mon. No one seriously believes the RNC is putting a finger on the scale for Ted Cruz. On the contrary, Priebus’s “no comment” is itself being received as proof that the GOP establishment so loathes Cruz that they’d prefer to leave him under the cloud. That’s a form of interference too (although not necessarily to Cruz’s detriment, as he can cite this as the latest evidence that the “Washington cartel” is out to get him). At a bare minimum, in recognition of the fact that they really might be stuck with Cruz as nominee and in the name of tamping down fears of the chaos that would follow if Cruz was suddenly thrown off the ballot after voting began, the party’s chairman should be able to say that the GOP has every confidence that all of its candidates are eligible for the presidency. This isn’t a policy dispute, after all. This is a “does the GOP take the Constitution seriously enough not to nominate candidates who are barred by the Constitution?” dispute. The RNC really has no choice but to go all in on that.

Other Republicans do, of course, have a choice:

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said Monday that the issue of whether U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is legally eligible to run for the presidency because he was born in Canada is “fair game” on the Republican campaign trail.

“When you run for president of the United States, any question is fair game. So let the people decide,” Branstad told reporters at his weekly press briefing at the Iowa Capitol.

Branstad is a Christie ally, although I don’t imagine there are many Cruz voters who are looking at Christie as their number two if they start to doubt whether Cruz is ineligible so I don’t know what his strategy is here. Maybe he’s afraid of Trump demagoging him if he goes to bat for Cruz? Maybe he hates Cruz enough himself that he’d rather see Trump win in Iowa? In theory, I suppose, Christie is better off if Trump wins Iowa than if Cruz does even though it may all but guarantee a Trump win in New Hampshire too. If Trump wins the first two states and Christie finishes highest among the “moderates,” he might end up as the “anybody but Trump” candidate for the rest of the primaries. If Cruz wins Iowa, he’s in it for the long haul. And Christie would have trouble beating Cruz.

Meanwhile, lefty law professors are trolling Cruz by arguing that Cruz’s own originalist view of the Constitution would make him ineligible for the presidency:

In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court – an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption – Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”

He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors – a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time – Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”

A professor from Fordham Law made a similar case to the LA Times, that Cruz would be considered a citizen neither by birth on U.S. soil or by blood from a citizen parent, which was limited to one’s father. Paul Clement and Neal Katyal disagree, though, arguing that even under the Naturalization Act of 1790, Cruz would be a citizen based on the fact that his mother was a citizen and the fact that his father resided in the United States for a time. Either way, rest assured that not even the dependable lefties on the Supreme Court are going to boot Cruz off the ballot in the middle of an election if he has a whisper of a chance at winning. To the extent this issue matters, it matters only as a way for Trump to cast enough doubt about Cruz in the minds of voters to tilt a close election his way. If Reince wants a bunch of “Birther gambit pushes Trump over top in Iowa!” headlines the day after the caucuses, okay. But then, maybe that’s inevitable at this point. How many votes is Priebus going to sway, really?

Here’s Rand Paul, Cruz frenemy, proving once again that he’s the second-most talented troll in the Republican field. I’ll leave you with this, as it’s the best argument I’ve seen for why no Republicans should rush to Cruz’s aid on his eligibility: If Cruz lacks the nerve to blame Trump instead of the “Washington cartel” for stirring up Birther stuff, why should anyone else muster the nerve to defend him?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 6:26 PM

Sure Gary.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:30 PM

You already know the answer to this because it’s been asked/answered a million times. You just don’t care.

It hasn’t been answered at all.

Serious question for Trump supporters…What is it with Trump’s weird sort of admiration or respect of dictator’s killing people? It’s a bit creepy. We have his appreciation of a sort of Kim Jong-Un killing his opponents and then someone came across this nugget from the Tiananmen Square massacre:

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/686600278695620608

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:17 PM

Read the WHOLE thing:

“If you look at North Korea, this guy, he’s like a maniac, OK?” Trump said at a rally in Ottumwa, Iowa, on Saturday.

“And you’ve got to give him credit: How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals and all of a sudden, you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?” he added.

“Even though it is a culture, and it’s a culture thing, he goes in, he takes over, he’s the boss. It’s incredible.”

After North Korea’s government said it successfully tested a hydrogen bomb earlier this week, Trump called the authoritarian leader a “madman playing around with nukes” and a “total nut job.”

As to Tiananmen Square, it was communist students fighting against communist leadership.

They were demanding freedom of the press, worker ownership of the factories, more career advancement opportunities, and a Communist party free of corruption. The enemy of our enemy is not our friend.

It is like us kissing up to Karzai in Afghanistan over the Taliban. They were both our enemies and Karzai was persecuting Christians just as much as the Taliban.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:31 PM

Obama was born in the US.

verbaluce

In Connecticut, if I’m not mistaken.

xblade on January 11, 2016 at 6:32 PM

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:31 PM

I did read the whole thing. He calls him a maniac (he calls lots of people maniacs it seems) but his tone is weirdly appreciative.

As for Tiananmen Square, I don’t know where you’re getting your facts but they were pro-democracy protesters. That’s why they were being slaughtered.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:35 PM

It’s probably the fact he has a long record of fighting to defend our rights and our Constitution as well as fighting against pretend conservatives and our crappy party leadership.

The problem is the grandstanding and the actions do not meet up.

Anyone running has an ego. You have to because you’re putting yourself out there all the time saying vote for me, support me. You have to believe you’re the right voice.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:23 PM

FINALLY! A CRUZ SUPPORTER ADMITS CRUZ HAS AN EGO TO SATISFY!

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:36 PM

The problem is the grandstanding and the actions do not meet up.

I don’t see it as grandstanding. When strategies he’s attacked. When they fail, at least he tried. He promised to do everything he could and he kept his promise. It’s not his fault other people who made the same promise backed out and refused to stand with him.

FINALLY! A CRUZ SUPPORTER ADMITS CRUZ HAS AN EGO TO SATISFY!

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:36 PM

I also said anyone running has an ego. It’s part and parcel of being a candidate. lol

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:41 PM

^ When strategies WORK, he’s attacked.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:42 PM

I did read the whole thing. He calls him a maniac (he calls lots of people maniacs it seems) but his tone is weirdly appreciative.

He’s more amazed that he wasn’t killed by his generals than anything.

As for Tiananmen Square, I don’t know where you’re getting your facts but they were pro-democracy protesters. That’s why they were being slaughtered.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:35 PM

It started after one of the leaders in the Communist party was deposed/killed for wanting to liberalize some of its stances.

Many students wanted to liberalize the country, but it was disjointed and muffled by the many more who joined up, like an tea party rally than combined with an Occupy Wall Street rally.

A communist is still a communist.

I will say his statement is weird, and I am interested in what he was meaning by that.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:52 PM

I don’t see it as grandstanding. When strategies he’s attacked. When they fail, at least he tried. He promised to do everything he could and he kept his promise. It’s not his fault other people who made the same promise backed out and refused to stand with him.

So what are his accomplishments?

FINALLY! A CRUZ SUPPORTER ADMITS CRUZ HAS AN EGO TO SATISFY!

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:36 PM

I also said anyone running has an ego. It’s part and parcel of being a candidate. lol

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:41 PM

Trump has a huge ego, Cruz has a huge ego. They. All. Do.

Anyone who says they believe their candidate and not Trump because of his ego is a useful idiot.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:55 PM

So what are his accomplishments?

http://www.youngcons.com/ted-cruzs-resume-is-very-impressive-should-make-him-standout-amongst-other-candidates/
https://www.tedcruz.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/About-Ted-Cruz.pdf

Trump has a huge ego, Cruz has a huge ego. They. All. Do.

Anyone who says they believe their candidate and not Trump because of his ego is a useful idiot.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:55 PM

I don’t distrust Trump because he has an ego, though I will say his is yuge.

I don’t trust him because he’s been all over the map on issues that are important to me and his solutions don’t forward small government conservatism. Though, like I said, I am glad he put the spotlight on immigration/border security.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 7:04 PM

How the hell do you pronounce this guys name?

Pegcity on January 11, 2016 at 4:05 PM

Reese’s pieces.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 7:08 PM

The RNC isn’t get a dime out of me this year. They’ve been passively aggressive with anyone who has shown any truly Republican tendencies.

Limpet6 on January 11, 2016 at 7:10 PM

OT:

http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/breaking-top-us-admiral-fired-for-questioning-obama-purchase-of-mansion-in-dubai/#

fossten on January 11, 2016 at 4:20 PM

What’s wrong with buying a mansion in Dubai? They have great golf-courses there.

Gelsomina on January 11, 2016 at 7:14 PM

anotherJoe on January 11, 2016 at 4:23 PM

Rush supports Senator Ted Cruz, just like Hannity, Levin, Foxnews.

Mark Levin’s radio show has become the Cruz radio show. Had him on just to see what he’s talking about. First thing I heard was Senator Ted Cruz’s Super Pac ad. The audio was clips of Cruz trying to sound like
Donald J. Trump. Cruz was railing about the Lobbyists in D.C., LOL
Like Cruz doesn’t have any supporting him.

Seems like Levin is only taking calls from those that support Cruz.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 7:21 PM

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad Questions Ted Cruz Citizenship – And Other Issues Candidate Ted Cruz Can Never Reconcile…
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/11/iowa-governor-terry-branstad-questions-ted-cruz-citizenship-and-other-issues-candidate-ted-cruz-can-never-reconcile/

Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 7:35 PM

anotherJoe on January 11, 2016 at 4:34 PM

You should ask Trump that question, since he supported amnesty in August 2013 and legalization up through at least July 2015.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 4:38 PM

That has nothing to do with the fact that Senator Ted Cruz declined to answer the question he was asked. THAT was the point anotherJoe was making. Keep in mind that Senator Ted Cruz has a voting record, not Donald J. Trump.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 7:35 PM

The fact that the GOPe will go with Trump rather than Cruz tells you everything you need to know.

Iblis on January 11, 2016 at 7:38 PM

So what are his accomplishments?

http://www.youngcons.com/ted-cruzs-resume-is-very-impressive-should-make-him-standout-amongst-other-candidates/
https://www.tedcruz.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/About-Ted-Cruz.pdf

Sounds like a good resume for the Supreme Court. You don’t have to be a NBC to be one to boot!

Trump has a huge ego, Cruz has a huge ego. They. All. Do.

Anyone who says they believe their candidate and not Trump because of his ego is a useful idiot.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 6:55 PM

I don’t distrust Trump because he has an ego, though I will say his is yuge.

I don’t trust him because he’s been all over the map on issues that are important to me and his solutions don’t forward small government conservatism. Though, like I said, I am glad he put the spotlight on immigration/border security.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 7:04 PM

And trade, political correctness, taxes, etc. His other positions are out there, it is just that people focus on immigration/border security because it is such an important issue that affects a range of issues.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 7:40 PM

The fact that the GOPe will go with Trump rather than Cruz tells you everything you need to know.

Iblis on January 11, 2016 at 7:38 PM

The talking points have gone out to the Cruz bots.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 7:41 PM

Keep in mind that Senator Ted Cruz has a voting record, not Donald J. Trump.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 7:35 PM

Anyone with common sense should keep that in mind.

Gelsomina on January 11, 2016 at 7:41 PM

The talking points have gone out to the Cruz bots.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 7:41 PM

Donald Trump supported the Clintons. Repeatedly. What’s he ever done for Conservatives? Has he even tried to fight for us?
He’s been very entertaining, but does he even have principles? And are they ours?

Iblis on January 11, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Donald Trump supported the Clintons. Repeatedly. What’s he ever done for Conservatives? Has he even tried to fight for us?
He’s been very entertaining, but does he even have principles? And are they ours?

Iblis on January 11, 2016 at 7:46 PM

The last six months didn’t happen…

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 7:49 PM

Rix on January 11, 2016 at 4:51 PM

Sure he is. He’s just “asking questions” and “offering advice”. Trump is doing what Politicians do. The sleight of hand of a master.

I’ve got to give it to Trump. He’s good.

portlandon on January 11, 2016 at 4:58 PM

I don’t think Donald J. Trump brought this issue up. IIRC, the Washington Post asked him a question that he answered and that’s how it started.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 7:49 PM

Sounds like a good resume for the Supreme Court. You don’t have to be a NBC to be one to boot!

I’d prefer him in the Oval Office continuing to fight and help drive conservative solutions to our problems.

And trade, political correctness, taxes, etc. His other positions are out there, it is just that people focus on immigration/border security because it is such an important issue that affects a range of issues.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 7:40 PM

He gets a ton of earned media and he’s done a good job highlighting certain issues (though I think the political correctness issue is more in Carson’s column FWIW). But I don’t trust him to be consistent and deliver because he’s not a conservative and I believe we need someone committed to defending the Constitution and forwarding small government solutions.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 7:56 PM

We’re calling out all of these people whether or not they believe CRUZ is eligible to be president. The Answer is YES……or…….NO. And we’ll see who has the balls to stand up and say NO!!!!!! WE ARE TAKING NAMES NOW…..If McCain, TRUMP, Paul, Coulter, Branstadt, Priebus, Bush, or any of the establishment RINOS say NO or want to play the TRUMP innuendo game……consider this bridge burned and we won’t be having anything to do for the GOP ever again in our lifetimes.

Realdemocrat1 on January 11, 2016 at 7:56 PM

The last six months didn’t happen…

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 7:49 PM

The last six months? He’s running for office. He’s going to say whatever he can to get elected even if he’s had other positions in the past, ie supporting amnesty and gun control and so forth. People running for office put their best foot forward so it’s imperative to look beyond the “chicken in every pot” rhetoric to see if there’s any there there, ie, do they have a record that’s reliable. Not a perfect record, just something of substance beyond speeches.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 7:59 PM

INC on January 11, 2016 at 5:18 PM

Hi INC! Nice to see you. I’ve tried to avoid politics but hard to do:-)

Do you remember when the RNC made certain rules and you and I discussed them? I’m trying to remember if it was in 2012 or earlier. Maybe 2010. Gee, time flies:-)

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 8:03 PM

I’d prefer him in the Oval Office continuing to fight and help drive conservative solutions to our problems.

The problem is all his experience is judicial. He is not fit nor eligible for the oval office. Period.

He gets a ton of earned media and he’s done a good job highlighting certain issues (though I think the political correctness issue is more in Carson’s column FWIW).

Carson does not have the authority nor the force necessary to battle political correctness that Trump has.

But I don’t trust him to be consistent and deliver because he’s not a conservative

“Conservative” really doesn’t mean much anymore, it has become another bastardized term that means whatever people wanted it to mean.

and I believe we need someone committed to defending the Constitution and forwarding small government solutions.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 7:56 PM

If he was committed to defending the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, he wouldn’t have voted to lower the requirements to pass illegal treaties, TWICE.

If he was committed to defending the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, he would drop out because he’s not a NBC.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

The last six months? He’s running for office. He’s going to say whatever he can to get elected even if he’s had other positions in the past, ie supporting amnesty and gun control and so forth. People running for office put their best foot forward so it’s imperative to look beyond the “chicken in every pot” rhetoric to see if there’s any there there, ie, do they have a record that’s reliable. Not a perfect record, just something of substance beyond speeches.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 7:59 PM

His best foot forward is, bring back the good ones, doing the jobs Americans will not do, they are important members of their communities…
I do not approve! Give me, not today, not tomorrow, not ever!

Constitutionalist on January 11, 2016 at 8:17 PM

If you want to know why Trump is believed on amnesty, it’s because he stuck his neck out when no one else would on the issue and had the guts to make it the centerpiece of his campaign when the GOP Smart Set all predicted his political doom based on it. His business has suffered for his position on amnesty. Furthermore, if he betrays his supporters on amnesty, he will be an instant lame duck if elected to the White House. So yeah, I believe Trump.

Doomberg on January 11, 2016 at 5:40 PM

I agree. Donald J. Trump laid it all on the line when he decided to run for President; just like our Founders did. And like them, he is funding his own campaign. The other Candidates are spending their $$$Donors money and if they don’t win, can return to their Seats in Congress or whatever position they held with all of the money they were given.

Trump is believed because of the above and he is the Real Deal. He runs his campaign and he speaks from the heart; no speech writers or teleprompters.

Donald J. Trump is running for all of the right reasons and the others are running for all of the wrong reasons.

For me, the choice is clear. Donald J. Trump for the win.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

You’re making definitive statements about what he is an isn’t qualified to do. On that, I’ll respectfully disagree with your opinions.

As for Carson vs. Trump, the stand out moments re: political correctness came early on against Carson. He handled them with grace and I felt did a good job highlighting and using them at that time.

Also, Conservative doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean. Defend the Constitution & the Bill of Rights and use that as your basis for your governing agenda.

I agree he made the wrong move on a few of those votes. Given his record, I have to believe he was attempting some sort of strategy that blew up in his face. It doesn’t erase a life time of work but it is a ding on his record.

I won’t address your birther nonsense because it’s just sad at this point.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM

His best foot forward is, bring back the good ones, doing the jobs Americans will not do, they are important members of their communities…
I do not approve! Give me, not today, not tomorrow, not ever!

Constitutionalist on January 11, 2016 at 8:17 PM

Yes. And Cruz at his weakest point was still better than Trump’s. Cruz said we could have a conversation about what to do with whoever’s left after securing the border and enforcement which, historically, was the right answer to give. Trump has supported security but then maybe amnesty or maybe legalization or maybe expediting return of the good ones, which as I said, makes no sense.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 8:25 PM

The last six months? He’s running for office.

And he’s been running a controversial campaign that is shattering previously held thought.

He’s done more for conservative thought than any conservative since Reagan and Gingrich.

He’s going to say whatever he can to get elected even if he’s had other positions in the past,

Who would have said the things he is saying now that is currently running?

That’s right. NONE OF THEM.

ie supporting amnesty

Once in 2012 in an outburst when he was mad at Romney for throwing the election, he critiqued Romney’s self deportation lingo. Cruz was for legal status, and battled for legal status openly for a year from the Senate floor and afterwards until Trump. He was demanding huge increases in legal immigration before Trump. Immigration is really Trump’s most consistent issue and goes back before the 1990’s. And this was him as a private citizen, not as a lawyer like Cruz, who should know better than to want to give people an incentive to break the law.

Because we will allow them to keep their ill gotten gains if they stay long enough.

and gun control

He’s been consistent on that for years.

and so forth. People running for office put their best foot forward so it’s imperative to look beyond the “chicken in every pot” rhetoric to see if there’s any there there, ie, do they have a record that’s reliable. Not a perfect record, just something of substance beyond speeches.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 7:59 PM

Trump doesn’t really have a public record like Cruz does with a record entombed into the Senate. He does have major achievements in the business world and major executive experience. He is not an ideologue like some would like, but he doesn’t deal in lawyer speak. I believe him when he says he will deport illegal aliens, when he says we will go to a merit system, when he says he will tighten muslim immigration. When Cruz says it, all I hear is focus group tested lawyer speech and innuendo, always with room for an out.

Crap like:

I don’t intend to support legalization in the future.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:26 PM

Donald Trump supported the Clintons. Repeatedly. What’s he ever done for Conservatives? Has he even tried to fight for us?
He’s been very entertaining, but does he even have principles? And are they ours?

Iblis on January 11, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Donald J. Trump donated to everybody as a private Citizen and a Business Person and has said that many times. He is now running for President and it’s a new ballgame.

You ask what he’s ever done for Conservatives. He is doing it now by laying everything on the line and running for President to try his best to rescue our Country!! And yes, he’s fighting the best fight and if you’re interested in saving our Country, them join him and vote for him.

If you’ve watched all of his Rallies you should know what his principles are.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 8:37 PM

Trump isn’t a conservative at all.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:02 PM

Donald J. Trump is an American Patriot.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 8:39 PM

And he’s been running a controversial campaign that is shattering previously held thought.

He’s done more for conservative thought than any conservative since Reagan and Gingrich.

Good Lord NO. That is patently false. WOW.

Who would have said the things he is saying now that is currently running?

That’s right. NONE OF THEM.

And some of it I agree with and some of it I don’t. Some of it is positive and some of it is awful.

Once in 2012 in an outburst when he was mad at Romney for throwing the election, he critiqued Romney’s self deportation lingo. Cruz was for legal status, and battled for legal status openly for a year from the Senate floor and afterwards until Trump. He was demanding huge increases in legal immigration before Trump. Immigration is really Trump’s most consistent issue and goes back before the 1990’s. And this was him as a private citizen, not as a lawyer like Cruz, who should know better than to want to give people an incentive to break the law.

Because we will allow them to keep their ill gotten gains if they stay long enough.

He supported amnesty as recently as 2013. He supported legalization as recently as 2015.

He’s been consistent on that for years.

Great. But the fact remains he’s been all over the place in the record of what he supports. http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/26/from-immigration-to-abortion-longtime-democrat-donald-trump-must-reckon-with-his-rich-progressive-history/

Trump doesn’t really have a public record like Cruz does with a record entombed into the Senate. He does have major achievements in the business world and major executive experience. He is not an ideologue like some would like, but he doesn’t deal in lawyer speak. I believe him when he says he will deport illegal aliens, when he says we will go to a merit system, when he says he will tighten muslim immigration. When Cruz says it, all I hear is focus group tested lawyer speech and innuendo, always with room for an out.

Crap like:

I don’t intend to support legalization in the future.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:26 PM

I’m not a big fan of lawyer speak either but it’s necessary for political figures to avoid “read my lips” gaffes. Remember historically that legalization for some after the borders were secure was always going to be an issue. He’s saying this is not what he wants but has to allow for the possibility it might be necessary for some.

Also, Trump wants to ban all Muslims. While I understand why, the problem is it disregards certain realities, ie, we need certain allies in the middle east to help us do what we need and it’s probably not a good idea to offend everyone.

Trump is too erratic and brash for my tastes and as I said, isn’t a conservative. My sense of him is he’ll continue Obama’s excessive use of the executive pen in order to get things done and that’s a big fear. We need to restore the checks and balances, not continue the same extra-Constitutional methodology.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 8:39 PM

Donald J. Trump is an American Patriot.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 8:39 PM

I never questioned his patriotism.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 8:40 PM

You’re making definitive statements about what he is an isn’t qualified to do.

I am making my definitive statements based on Vattel’s Law of Nations, which the founder’s used in their definitions, for my conclusions on his status as a NBC.

I didn’t say he was not qualified in that statement, I simply stated he’s not eligible.

Law of Nations:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Also, Conservative doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean. Defend the Constitution & the Bill of Rights and use that as your basis for your governing agenda.

I agree he made the wrong move on a few of those votes. Given his record, I have to believe he was attempting some sort of strategy that blew up in his face. It doesn’t erase a life time of work but it is a ding on his record.

Again see above.

I won’t address your birther nonsense because it’s just sad at this point.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM

All your professions on following the the Constitution and you disregard the very document when it suits you. Secondly, you attempt to poison the well instead of addressing the argument.

That is the sad part. Acting like a Democrat.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:43 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/24/report-every-deported-illegal-household-saves-taxpayers-more-than-700000/

Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM

WOW! And that troll that took over the thread the other night was supporting illegals.

Perhaps all of those Candidates except Donald J. Trump should read those stats before wanting to legalize them. Senator Ted Cruz may want to revise his ideas on deportation; that would be the “Conservative” thing to do.

Appreciate your contributions to the facts and especially the truth about what Donald J. Trump stands for.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM

All your professions on following the the Constitution and you disregard the very document when it suits you. Secondly, you attempt to poison the well instead of addressing the argument.

That is the sad part. Acting like a Democrat.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:43 PM

You quote the one thing that you like and ignore every other thing you don’t like on how the law is on Cruz’s side. And then you levy an ad hominem attack. Lovely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/07/why-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/an-unnaturally-born-non-controversy
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-and-eligible-to-be-president/

I could go on, but you reject the fact based premise so I won’t.

Oh why not…here’s one more: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429356/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 8:55 PM

Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 6:15 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet your one and only Conservative Presidential Candidate, Senator Ted Cruz!!

If his record that you’ve taken the time to post is a Conservative, then no thanks!!

Great Job. I’ll bookmark that and post it the next time I hear anything about “Conservative Cruz” or Donald J. Trump isn’t a Conservative (He’s a Patriot which is 100% better if Cruz is the definition of a “Conservative.”

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 8:59 PM

Good Lord NO. That is patently false. WOW.

Then I presume you would have backed that up with evidence?

He’s done more for conservatism in the past six months than anyone else. No republican has taken the fight to the democrats on their home turf more than he has since Gingrich and Reagan. Period.

Who would have said the things he is saying now that is currently running?

That’s right. NONE OF THEM.

And some of it I agree with and some of it I don’t. Some of it is positive and some of it is awful.

And again, are you going to present something instead of feelings?

Once in 2012 in an outburst when he was mad at Romney for throwing the election, he critiqued Romney’s self deportation lingo. Cruz was for legal status, and battled for legal status openly for a year from the Senate floor and afterwards until Trump. He was demanding huge increases in legal immigration before Trump. Immigration is really Trump’s most consistent issue and goes back before the 1990’s. And this was him as a private citizen, not as a lawyer like Cruz, who should know better than to want to give people an incentive to break the law.

Because we will allow them to keep their ill gotten gains if they stay long enough.

He supported amnesty as recently as 2013. He supported legalization as recently as 2015.

Links. Please. If you are going to start the argument, then start linking.

Great. But the fact remains he’s been all over the place in the record of what he supports. http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/26/from-immigration-to-abortion-longtime-democrat-donald-trump-must-reckon-with-his-rich-progressive-history/

Again find me some positions more recent than the early 2000’s.
But from your own article:

It calls for an end to birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and “a wall across the southern border.” He wants Mexico to pay for the wall. He also wants to triple the number of immigration enforcement officials, defund sanctuary cities and deport criminal illegal immigrants.

“We need to control the admission of new low-earning workers” and to compel American businesses to “hire American workers first,” Trump currently says.

At the same time, the real estate magnate now endorses a “merit system” for illegal immigrants who already reside in the U.S.

Huh. Cruz was against defining birthright citizenship. He doesn’t want to expand ICE, just the border patrol. He doesn’t want to control legal immigration, and wants to expand it.

And any plan that Trump talked about was superceded by his written plan now, with him wanting a merit system for immigrants, which any deported illegal alien will have to meet.

Many illegal aliens are VISA holders that had their VISA expire. They could be doctor’s and other skilled employers we may need, so Trump would want them back. Low skilled burger flippers? Get out and stay out.

I’m not a big fan of lawyer speak either but it’s necessary for political figures to avoid “read my lips” gaffes.

No, it’s a reminder that you don’t make promises you are going to blatantly violate.

Remember historically that legalization for some after the borders were secure was always going to be an issue. He’s saying this is not what he wants but has to allow for the possibility it might be necessary for some.

Again, weak lawyer speak.

Also, Trump wants to ban all Muslims. While I understand why, the problem is it disregards certain realities, ie, we need certain allies in the middle east to help us do what we need and it’s probably not a good idea to offend everyone.

So see you in 30 years when America is where Europe is now.

Trump is too erratic and brash for my tastes and as I said, isn’t a conservative.

And as I’ve stated, he’s not an ideologue, he is a doer. He doesn’t live by a dogma and I trust that he will assemble the right people to get the job done until he breaks that trust. He has done it with all of his plans thus far, he has not given me a reason to not believe him when he proclaims something. Cruz has.

My sense of him is he’ll continue Obama’s excessive use of the executive pen in order to get things done and that’s a big fear.

Cat’s out of the bag. Congress had it’s job, impeachment, and it chose not to. It even blessed it with a republican majority in both houses.

We need to restore the checks and balances, not continue the same extra-Constitutional methodology.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 8:39 PM

Not with the presidency. You need to do that with an Article V Convention. There is no way you will convince the Federal Executive and his legislature to reign in their power.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:59 PM

Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 6:15 PM

Blah Blah Blah copy paste blah blah blah

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:18 PM

Oh, I see that facts about Senator Ted Cruz doesn’t go along with your agenda?

Why don’t you defend what Garyinaz66 posted 1/11/2016 above? You expect us (Donald J. Trump supporters) to defend every attack you make against him.

Sort of hard to defend the indefensible, though huh?

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 9:08 PM

It’s probably the fact he has a long record of fighting to defend our rights and our Constitution as well as fighting against pretend conservatives and our crappy party leadership.Anyone running has an ego. You have to because you’re putting yourself out there all the time saying vote for me, support me. You have to believe you’re the right voice.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 6:23 PM

This is a long track record of sketchy stuff with slick teddy cruz the amnesty candidate that’s visible to anyone who actually pays close attention, and/or has been engaged since 2012/2013.

For some really odd reason Cruz supporters skip an entire period of his short time in the Senate:

*Elected November 2012

*Took office January 2013

*Fought ObamaCare February to Sept 2013 (essentially no issues with him through those nine months)

And then Something Changed.

*October 2013 – Cruz modifies his relationships within the Senate and joins NRSC and begins giving money from his leadership PAC to GOPe operatives.

*January 2014 – Cruz announces he will not support any challengers in ’14 mid-term elections.

*March/April 2014 – Cruz supporting Mitch McConnell.

*June 2014 – McConnells full back-stabbing reaches sunlight over McDaniel in *Mississippi and protection of Thad Cochran.

*July/August 2014 – Cruz says he doesn’t support McConnell any longer, yet remains on NRSC.

*December ’14 Post election announces he’s leaving the NRSC.

*Feb/March ’15 Meets with Paul Ryan and constructs road map for CoC requested, TPP trade deal.

*April ’15 Pens open letter promoting TPA with Paul Ryan

*May ’15 Creates “Fast Track” trade rider to attach to TPA changing vote threshold for approval/disapproval to simple majority – thereby insuring it’s passage. Also votes down amendment requiring congressional notification prior to China/Russia joining deal.

*May ’15 Becomes first candidate to announce presidential bid.

*June/July ’15 – Votes against his own TPA bill (cover) even though the rider he created insures it’s passage.

*July/August ’15 Other candidates join presidential race.

Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 6:15 PM

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 9:12 PM

Then I presume you would have backed that up with evidence?

He’s done more for conservatism in the past six months than anyone else. No republican has taken the fight to the democrats on their home turf more than he has since Gingrich and Reagan. Period.

You’re stating an opinion. I’m disagreeing with your opinion. I approve of fighting back but that’s not limited to Conservativism.

And again, are you going to present something instead of feelings?

I’ve not talked about my feelings. I’ve talked about my opinions. I do like some things he’s said and done and have disliked others.

Links. Please. If you are going to start the argument, then start linking.

I linked to both early in the thread.

Congress must protect our borders first. Amnesty should be done only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373145053482319872

Donald Trump (July 2015):

“Well, the first thing we do is take the bad ones — of which there are, unfortunately, quite a few,” said Trump, who owns three New Jersey golf courses and once owned three Atlantic City casinos. “We take the bad ones and get ’em the hell out. We get ’em out.”

But he said the country should take a different approach with “the other ones” — i.e., undocumented immigrants who have “done a good job” since arriving in the U.S.

“I’m a very big believer in the merit system,” Trump said. “I have to tell you: Some of these people have been here, they’ve done a good job. You know, in some cases, sadly, they’ve been living under the shadows. … If somebody’s been outstanding, we try and work something out.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/donald_trump_hints_at_merit_system_for_undocumente.html

And as I’ve stated, he’s not an ideologue, he is a doer. He doesn’t live by a dogma and I trust that he will assemble the right people to get the job done until he breaks that trust. He has done it with all of his plans thus far, he has not given me a reason to not believe him when he proclaims something. Cruz has.

Ideologue vs doer is a false contrast. I want principled Conservatism that gets things done.

Cat’s out of the bag. Congress had it’s job, impeachment, and it chose not to. It even blessed it with a republican majority in both houses.

Wow. Just wow. No times a million. We have to start to roll this back NOW not just say well the other guys do it. Either you believe in the checks and balances of our Constitutional Republic and the need to restore order or you are wanting Trump to be a pseudo King and that equals the death of our Republic.

Not with the presidency. You need to do that with an Article V Convention. There is no way you will convince the Federal Executive and his legislature to reign in their power.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:59 PM

The President can’t fix it, you’re right. But they can make it worse by perpetuating the imbalance in the name of “getting things done.” A Chief Executive who respects the constraints will seek to restore that balance and will seed his administration with like minded people.

A President who respects the Constitution will keep within its parameters as well as encourage the States to regain their power. Cruz supports an Article V Convention btw.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:18 PM

Cruz Won’t Send ‘Jack Boots’ to Deport 11.3 Million Illegal Immigrants

Cruz is already backtracking. And during the backtrack calls Trump and those who support him Nazis.

This is another reason why this ineligible Canadian should not be serving.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 9:19 PM

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 9:12 PM

Yes I’ve seen that copy/pasted all over the place. It tries to paint a narrative with a few facts but it conflicts with other narratives. It also disregards everything else he’s done to fight for us and our Constitutional freedoms.

I get why this is happening but it’s still sad.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:20 PM

Cruz is already backtracking. And during the backtrack calls Trump and those who support him Nazis.

This is another reason why this ineligible Canadian should not be serving.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 9:19 PM

That’s not backtracking. You don’t need a special task force. You just need to enforce the law.

Also, he didn’t call anyone Nazis. Wow is that dishonest.

Nice attack on him and his credibility though.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:21 PM

Perhaps Ted Cruz supporters find themselves on the losing end of reality and need to manufacture distractions. Perhaps Ted Cruz supporters are just maintaining the currency of falsehood that is essentially a hallmark of the Cruz campaign.”
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/11/15/conservative-media-protecting-advancing-their-candidates/#more-108472

Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 6:26 PM

With your another post of January 11, 2016 at 6:15 PM (this thread) and now this one….All I can say is I hope a lot of Iowa voters are reading.

Now I understand why the RNC head Reince Priebus declined to say anything about Senator Ted Cruz and the birther issue!!! Senator Ted Cruz is one of the Establishment Candidates!!! Oh, yeah!!

Thank you so much Gary, I can see clearer now and I hope others will too!!

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 9:23 PM

Conservastupid sais trump is not a Conservative than sais he didnt question trumps patriotism. “Patriotism”= a person who vigorously supports their Country and is prepared to defend it against enemies and detractors”. Lol!! You idiot. Does that sound like a liberal then?? The opposite of a Conservative??. Youre stupid….

Indiana Jim on January 11, 2016 at 9:30 PM

Conservastupid sais trump is not a Conservative than sais he didnt question trumps patriotism. “Patriotism”= a person who vigorously supports their Country and is prepared to defend it against enemies and detractors”. Lol!! You idiot. Does that sound like a liberal then?? The opposite of a Conservative??. Youre stupid….

Indiana Jim on January 11, 2016 at 9:30 PM

Aw. Aren’t you sweet.

You can be a patriot but not be a small government conservative. You might believe your ideas are right for America, but if your method to get things done doesn’t shrink the size and scope of government and isn’t in line with the Constitution, your intent is good but your method is not.

Thanks for playing.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:32 PM

You’re stating an opinion. I’m disagreeing with your opinion. I approve of fighting back but that’s not limited to Conservativism.

You said “Good Lord NO. That is patently false. WOW.”
And you got nothing to show for it?

And again, are you going to present something instead of feelings?

I’ve not talked about my feelings. I’ve talked about my opinions. I do like some things he’s said and done and have disliked others.

Fine. I guess we are talking about feelings, Like/Dislike/erratic/brashness, etc.

I linked to both early in the thread.

Thanks. But since he started running and giving it more thought, he started working with Jeff Sessions and came up with a better policy.
Your own article lists exactly that budding policy:

“I’m a very big believer in the merit system,” Trump said. “I have to tell you: Some of these people have been here, they’ve done a good job. You know, in some cases, sadly, they’ve been living under the shadows. … If somebody’s been outstanding, we try and work something out.

His plan lists clearly that he wants a merit system. After these people are deported, they will be assessed on merit with the other legal immigrants.

Ideologue vs doer is a false contrast. I want principled Conservatism that gets things done.

Well then you are backing the wrong guy because Cruz ain’t it.

Cat’s out of the bag. Congress had it’s job, impeachment, and it chose not to. It even blessed it with a republican majority in both houses.

Wow. Just wow.

The Nancy Pelosi defense.

No times a million. We have to start to roll this back NOW not just say well the other guys do it.

The precendent is already there. Because the Congress didn’t act against Obama there is ABSOLUTELY NO DETERRENT AGAINST ANOTHER EXECUTIVE ACTING THE SAME WAY.

Period.

Either you believe in the checks and balances of our Constitutional Republic and the need to restore order or you are wanting Trump to be a pseudo King and that equals the death of our Republic.

We are no longer a Republic. We live in a pseudo-Republic with a dictator in chief every four years who competes with 9 dictators on the Supreme Court.

Not with the presidency. You need to do that with an Article V Convention. There is no way you will convince the Federal Executive and his legislature to reign in their power.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 8:59 PM

The President can’t fix it, you’re right. But they can make it worse by perpetuating the imbalance in the name of “getting things done.” A Chief Executive who respects the constraints will seek to restore that balance and will seed his administration with like minded people.

A President who respects the Constitution will keep within its parameters as well as encourage the States to regain their power. Cruz supports an Article V Convention btw.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:18 PM

Again, Cruz does not respect the Constitution. You can’t pick and choose which provisions you follow.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM

That’s not backtracking. You don’t need a special task force. You just need to enforce the law.

Cruz won’t knock on a single door to deport someone. His list of preconditions is getting longer by the minute.

Anyone who wants to do so is a jackbooted thug.

Also, he didn’t call anyone Nazis. Wow is that dishonest.

Nice attack on him and his credibility though.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:21 PM

CRUZ SAID:

“No, I don’t intend to send jack boots to knock on your door and every door in America, that’s not the way we enforce the law for any crime,”

Jack boots were worn by the Nazis in WWII as part of their uniform and were issued to them by the Wehrmacht and the SS.

Cruz is calling Trump a Nazi, and by extension, all of his supporters.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 9:50 PM

You said “Good Lord NO. That is patently false. WOW.”
And you got nothing to show for it?

False conclusion. It’s not that I have nothing to show for it, it’s that it’s not worth my time looking it up and posting it since you’ll ignore it anyway.

Fine. I guess we are talking about feelings, Like/Dislike/erratic/brashness, etc.

No I’m talking about my opinion of how he acts and does things. “He is erratic and brash” = my opinion. It makes me feel wary about his leadership style = my feelings.

Thanks. But since he started running and giving it more thought, he started working with Jeff Sessions and came up with a better policy.
Your own article lists exactly that budding policy:

And yet, he still supported amnesty in 2013 and legalization through 2015. Whether his budding policy has been growing since then isn’t the point. He hasn’t been consistent on it at all. Cruz has adjusted his position to make it harder as well, but he started from the standpoint of no amnesty and then possibly legalization after the border is secured. He started stronger than Trump and his position is stronger than Trump’s now.

The Nancy Pelosi defense.

No that’s my stunned disbelief that you’re okay with trampling over the Constitutional checks and balances because it’s already happening.

The precendent is already there. Because the Congress didn’t act against Obama there is ABSOLUTELY NO DETERRENT AGAINST ANOTHER EXECUTIVE ACTING THE SAME WAY.

Period.

Of course there’s no deterrent! That’s not an excuse to keep doing it! It’s killing us and destroying any chance of our having a voice in how we’re governed on a national level.

We are no longer a Republic. We live in a pseudo-Republic with a dictator in chief every four years who competes with 9 dictators on the Supreme Court.

We are still nominally a Republic. If Republicans vote in someone to continue the dictator/executive pen with a weak legislature and a judiciary that invents laws, we’re doomed.

Again, Cruz does not respect the Constitution. You can’t pick and choose which provisions you follow.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 9:41 PM

Except that he does respect the Constitution. He’s not perfect and I don’t agree with everything he’s done but his is the most solid record from a Constitutional perspective.

I still believe that the restoration of the Constitution is the only thing to preserve our freedoms in the long haul and of those running, Cruz is the best suited to help begin/promote that process from the Oval Office.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:54 PM

Cruz won’t knock on a single door to deport someone. His list of preconditions is getting longer by the minute.

Anyone who wants to do so is a jackbooted thug.

That’s a lie. Look, we’ve deported millions upon millions of illegals in the past without a task force. We don’t need one now. We just need to enforce the law.

There are no preconditions.

Jack boots were worn by the Nazis in WWII as part of their uniform and were issued to them by the Wehrmacht and the SS.

Cruz is calling Trump a Nazi, and by extension, all of his supporters.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 9:50 PM

It’s called an ANALOGY. ROFL

We don’t need a special force to do what needs to be done and frankly the idea of a special force for this is kind of creepy. We have ICE. Let them do their job, empowered by tools that make it easier to find and isolate illegals.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:57 PM

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 9:12 PM

Yes I’ve seen that copy/pasted all over the place. It tries to paint a narrative with a few facts but it conflicts with other narratives. It also disregards everything else he’s done to fight for us and our Constitutional freedoms.

I get why this is happening but it’s still sad.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:20 PM

What Garyinaz66 on January 11, 2016 at 6:15 PM posted are on record of what Senator Ted Cruz has said or done or voted on. I don’t see how those are a “few facts” though. I don’t think they disregard anything positive that Senator Ted Cruz has done or said. However, they are very important since they show that he’s not the true Conservative that’s being portrayed.

We have seen many so called Conservatives elected to the House and Senate and once there they join the Establishment and vote against our Country and the American people.

Senator Cruz’s statements and his voting record and associations with the NRSC, etc are very troubling. Anyone can speak on the Senate Floor and introduce varies bills, but for what end? Introducing 100 bills knowing that they will die in the Committees is not a virtue in my book. I’ve read most all of the bills that Cruz introduced and he continues to do so. For what purpose?

We’ve had 8 years of Obama’s agenda being passed by the House and Senate. What did it profit us by giving the House the Majority in 2010? What did it profit us by giving the Senate the Majority in 2014?

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 9:59 PM

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 9:59 PM

No it’s very agenda driven. It’s trying to paint a picture with various pieces of a puzzle and drawing conclusions from it. It also disregards everything else we know about him.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 10:06 PM

Trump to Rinsed Peenus, “You’re Fired!”.

Exninja on January 11, 2016 at 10:09 PM

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 9:59 PM

No it’s very agenda driven. It’s trying to paint a picture with various pieces of a puzzle and drawing conclusions from it. It also disregards everything else we know about him.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 10:06 PM

What I know about Senator Ted Cruz prior to becoming a Senator is impressive. However, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House members represent the Citizens of the United States and their records are what
they are accountable for. Especially their voting records. Their on the
record statements are just as important, since these show their intent.

Pro-American or Anti-American and all of the above is weighed when I make a judgement. That is how I vote for or against a person.

That is why I read much more than I post on a forum or a blog. This week has probably been the most I’ve posted in many months, even tho I first registered in 2008. I want to know the truth about any issue that I will vote on, hence my heavy reading.

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 10:30 PM

bluefox on January 11, 2016 at 10:30 PM

Right and I applaud that. Read up on everyone. But to suggest the copy/paste above with some of his swing and miss votes paints the whole picture of Cruz’s work in the Senate while suggesting some dark agenda, ie, and “then something changed”, is dishonest at best.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 10:47 PM

False conclusion. It’s not that I have nothing to show for it, it’s that it’s not worth my time looking it up and posting it since you’ll ignore it anyway.

You’ve got nothing.

And yet, he still supported amnesty in 2013 and legalization through 2015. Whether his budding policy has been growing since then isn’t the point. He hasn’t been consistent on it at all.

He’s been consistently getting more conservative in the policy realm. And especially so when he started running. I don’t give props to johnny-come-lately Cruz who just last month decided he was against legalization.

Cruz has adjusted his position to make it harder as well, but he started from the standpoint of no amnesty

Legalization is amnesty, it is a forgiveness of your status and allows you to remain here.

and then possibly legalization after the border is secured.

Amnesty again.

He started stronger than Trump

Trump beat him to it, and took the fire from both sides, lost business, and money. Cruz decided he was no longer in favor of anchor babies, legalization, h1b visas, legal immigration going up 1000%, etc. after Trump entered.

and his position is stronger than Trump’s now.

No his position is calling Trump and his supporters Nazis for knocking on doors.

No that’s my stunned disbelief that you’re okay with trampling over the Constitutional checks and balances because it’s already happening.

Where did I say that. I said this:

The precendent is already there. Because the Congress didn’t act against Obama there is ABSOLUTELY NO DETERRENT AGAINST ANOTHER EXECUTIVE ACTING THE SAME WAY.

Period.

Of course there’s no deterrent!

Because Congress and people like Cruz refuse to do their jobs.

That’s not an excuse to keep doing it!

Any executive now has that authority because the law is in name only now. Again, precedent has been set. You can’t un-ring the bell or put humpty together again.

It’s killing us and destroying any chance of our having a voice in how we’re governed on a national level.

Which is why an Article V Convention is needed. Relying on the executive et al to constrain themselves is an retarded measure. You can have a Calvin Coolidge all you want, but as soon as Obama II comes in, all that veneer of a representative republic goes away. Because Obama I started it and Congress did -nothing- to stop it.

We are no longer a Republic. We live in a pseudo-Republic with a dictator in chief every four years who competes with 9 dictators on the Supreme Court.

We are still nominally a Republic. If Republicans vote in someone to continue the dictator/executive pen with a weak legislature and a judiciary that invents laws, we’re doomed.

Whelp. I guess we’re doomed then. Because they obviously didn’t learn since 2010.

Except that he does respect the Constitution.

He doesn’t, he wouldn’t be running then.

He’s not perfect and I don’t agree with everything he’s done but his is the most solid record from a Constitutional perspective.

Rand Paul would have that record, actually. And he has the benefit of being a Natural Born Citizen.

I still believe that the restoration of the Constitution is the only thing to preserve our freedoms in the long haul and of those running, Cruz is the best suited to help begin/promote that process from the Oval Office.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 9:54 PM

Then you are voting for the wrong guy, Rand Paul would be the one. Cruz doesn’t even want to be bound by the NBC requirement.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 11:04 PM

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 11:04 PM

No I don’t have nothing. I’m just not interested in wasting my time repeating them again.

I have several reasons why I don’t and didn’t support Paul. Besides the fact that at this point, that would be a wasted effort. Besides, Cruz is still the most solid Constitutionalist running.

I disagree with your NBC comments again. I’m pretty sure if/when it’s brought up in the next debate, Cruz will make sure to clear up all the muddled content a variety of people have said either out of ignorance or confusion or out of an agenda.

I’m not relying on the Executive to retard the abuse of the pen but I’m not going to support someone who will probably keep it going as opposed to someone who will not. Yes this requires the legislature to do their jobs too. But you’ve already declared defeat that our Constitutional Republic is dead and embrace the further over use of the Executive pen since that’s already been established and won’t be undone. I just don’t support this. I support fighting to get back to where we need to be, not saying oh well, we can’t undo it so let’s just get some guy we like to be our beneficent dictator.

On enforcement/security, Cruz supported what was an acceptable position (enforcement/security first) and Trump did not. Further Trump supported the very position your damning just a few short months ago. So fine, he’s getting “more conservative”, he’s still behind where Cruz was and has been and still is. And no Trump didn’t beat him to it. I know Trump thinks he came up with the idea of a wall but Cruz has been beating this drum for years.

As for the rest, this is a tired discussion. We’re not going to agree so let’s just move on.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 11:22 PM

No I don’t have nothing. I’m just not interested in wasting my time repeating them again.

I have several reasons why I don’t and didn’t support Paul. Besides the fact that at this point, that would be a wasted effort. Besides, Cruz is still the most solid Constitutionalist running.

If that is your point, no he’s not. Cruz is handily beaten by Paul in that department. But you’re proving that you don’t really care about Constitutionalism all that much, just Ted Cruz.

I disagree with your NBC comments again.

And the Founders disagree with you.

I’m pretty sure if/when it’s brought up in the next debate, Cruz will make sure to clear up all the muddled content a variety of people have said either out of ignorance or confusion or out of an agenda.

No President has ever been born in another country. And until Obama, every president was a NBC.

I’m not relying on the Executive to retard the abuse of the pen but I’m not going to support someone who will probably keep it going as opposed to someone who will not.

Again, it doesn’t matter, as I told you, all it takes is one guy. The precedent has already been set by Congress not acting. Your misplacing your faith in an Executive restraining themselves.

Yes this requires the legislature to do their jobs too. But you’ve already declared defeat that our Constitutional Republic is dead

At this point it is looking like it. Until we get an Article V Convention, this government will run amok.

and embrace the further over use of the Executive pen since that’s already been established and won’t be undone.

You again intimate that I endorse further use because you can’t accept reality. I am saying it will happen regardless of my or your views on it until an Article V Convention stops them or Congress decides it can impeach again.

I just don’t support this. I support fighting to get back to where we need to be, not saying oh well, we can’t undo it so let’s just get some guy we like to be our beneficent dictator.

Again, what is to stop Obama II from citing Obama I as precedent? Obama II can do literally whatever he wants and the party that supports him will close ranks around him and use Obama I as a defense.

And they will be right.

On enforcement/security, Cruz supported what was an acceptable position

Anchor babies, border security, and then amnesty.

Further Trump supported the very position your damning just a few short months ago.

No he did not. Deportation and then following the legal immigration pathway is not amnesty. You are reaching ridiculous levels of inanity.

So fine, he’s getting “more conservative”, he’s still behind where Cruz was and has been and still is.

Cruz while in the Senate, advocated amnesty and keeping anchor babies in the US. That’s all I need to know. When he was in elected office and should know better, he decided to adopt the liberal position. And Trump as a private citizen is not expected to know better nor know about these things in detail. Cruz is, that is what WE PAY HIM TO DO. He has a higher standard to live up to as an elected official.

And no Trump didn’t beat him to it.

He did. Which is why Cruz’s website had its immigration section redesigned back in Sept/Oct. It looked different from the initial offering.

I know Trump thinks he came up with the idea of a wall but Cruz has been beating this drum for years.

You are an idiot if you believe that. People have been talking about this for years before Cruz decided to stick his Canadian nose into it.

As for the rest, this is a tired discussion. We’re not going to agree so let’s just move on.

conservageek on January 11, 2016 at 11:22 PM

You can always admit that your wrong.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 11:41 PM

If that is your point, no he’s not. Cruz is handily beaten by Paul in that department. But you’re proving that you don’t really care about Constitutionalism all that much, just Ted Cruz.

Wrong.

And the Founders disagree with you.

No President has ever been born in another country. And until Obama, every president was a NBC.

We’re just not going to agree on this. The law is clear.

Again, it doesn’t matter, as I told you, all it takes is one guy. The precedent has already been set by Congress not acting. Your misplacing your faith in an Executive restraining themselves.

You again intimate that I endorse further use because you can’t accept reality. I am saying it will happen regardless of my or your views on it until an Article V Convention stops them or Congress decides it can impeach again.

I accept reality just fine and I’m pretty sure I said I don’t have faith in general in a President restraining this but I’d rather support someone who respects and will do their best to honor the checks/balances as opposed to someone who abuse the power to get things done/for our own good.

Again, what is to stop Obama II from citing Obama I as precedent? Obama II can do literally whatever he wants and the party that supports him will close ranks around him and use Obama I as a defense.

And they will be right.

Nothing will stop any executive from abusing power if they’re not held in check but I’m not going to support someone who shows no inclination of caring about limitation of powers. That would make Trump “Obama II” with an R next to his name and would make it next to impossible to pull back. I want someone who will work to change that game, not play it to his advantage.

No he did not. Deportation and then following the legal immigration pathway is not amnesty. You are reaching ridiculous levels of inanity.

Trump supported legalization for the good ones in JULY. Now he’s saying they all go but the good ones can come back on an expedited basis. Which, by the way, is inane.

Cruz while in the Senate, advocated amnesty and keeping anchor babies in the US. That’s all I need to know. When he was in elected office and should know better, he decided to adopt the liberal position. And Trump as a private citizen is not expected to know better nor know about these things in detail. Cruz is, that is what WE PAY HIM TO DO. He has a higher standard to live up to as an elected official.

He never advocated amnesty. That’s all I need to know. He did however fight amnesty and the Gang of 8 around the same time Trump was saying Amnesty was okay after we secure the borders.

He did. Which is why Cruz’s website had its immigration section redesigned back in Sept/Oct. It looked different from the initial offering.

Cruz has been advocating a wall for years. I’d post a few videos from 2011 but I doubt you’d bother watching them.

You are an idiot if you believe that. People have been talking about this for years before Cruz decided to stick his Canadian nose into it.

*rolls eyes* Always the insults. Like I said, not worth my time.

You can always admit that your wrong.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 11:41 PM

Except on this one I’m not. Cruz is still the most consistent Constitutional Conservative running. Cruz supports making government smaller and sending power back to the states and an Article V convention. He’s the best choice if we want to win our country back and restore the balance of power and Constitutional checks and balances.

Like I said. We’re not going to agree. So let’s just stop this back and forth and agree to disagree.

Have a good evening.

conservageek on January 12, 2016 at 12:03 AM

Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote the opinion of the unanimous Court. Read it and weep Cruz and Rubio supporters. There is a Supreme Court decision that spells out exactly what constitutes a natural-born citizen. There is no other Supreme Court ruling to vacate that decision nor an act of Congress to clarify or nullify their decision. As the liberals love to chant about Supreme Court decisions that go their way, “It is the law of the land” Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio need to exit the race and apologize to their donors and supporters for misleading them. Yes, they were both born citizens. No, they are not natural-born citizens. That requires to be born of citizen parents and born on US soil. Both were not born under those circumstances. And one of requirements per the Constitution is that the President be natural-born. Only federal office to have that requirement. Time for you Cruz and Rubio to wake up to the hard brutal fact that you have been had. Don’t be mad at Trump, his supporters or me. Your anger should be directed at Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio. Their egos are so large that they thought that the rules dont’ apply to them; that they could bluff their way to the White House. Nope. Obama was given a pass and we all can see how wise the Founders were in putting in the Natural-born requirement to be President. Never again. Neither of them qualify as natural-born citizens. Stick a fork in both of them. They are as done as a potato left in the oven at 450 for two hours.

Tarnsman on January 12, 2016 at 12:16 AM

I’m shocked I tell ya that Rinse Penis acts like a douchebag.

bbinfl on January 12, 2016 at 12:28 AM

That’s not a good sign that Cruz referred to INS enforcing the law as “jackboots”. That’s Jeb Bush talk, maybe worse. It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it, and they should be thanked, rather than called jackboots, i.e. fascist thugs. I’m pretty stunned at this attitude. Hopefully Cruz will reassess what he said and apologize to ICE and the others doing this tough but necessary work.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 12:30 AM

That’s not a good sign that Cruz referred to INS enforcing the law as “jackboots”. That’s Jeb Bush talk, maybe worse. It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it, and they should be thanked, rather than called jackboots, i.e. fascist thugs. I’m pretty stunned at this attitude. Hopefully Cruz will reassess what he said and apologize to ICE and the others doing this tough but necessary work.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 12:30 AM

He wasn’t referring to INS. He was referring to a proposal to create a new special enforcement force. We don’t need it (never have before when we’ve deported millions). We just need to enforce the law.

conservageek on January 12, 2016 at 12:35 AM

If that is your point, no he’s not. Cruz is handily beaten by Paul in that department. But you’re proving that you don’t really care about Constitutionalism all that much, just Ted Cruz.

Wrong.

You don’t.

And the Founders disagree with you.

No President has ever been born in another country. And until Obama, every president was a NBC.

We’re just not going to agree on this. The law is clear.

That he’s not eligible.

I accept reality just fine and I’m pretty sure I said I don’t have faith in general in a President restraining this but I’d rather support someone who respects and will do their best to honor the checks/balances as opposed to someone who abuse the power to get things done/for our own good.

That’s better.

Nothing will stop any executive from abusing power if they’re not held in check but I’m not going to support someone who shows no inclination of caring about limitation of powers. That would make Trump “Obama II” with an R next to his name and would make it next to impossible to pull back. I want someone who will work to change that game, not play it to his advantage.

You just stated that the checks and balances are there in theory, not in fact. Again, because of Obama, the theory has been broken because the only antidote to a president exceeding checks and balances is impeach/convict. One the Republican party has taken off the table. So any future president has the same power Obama does. And there is nothing anyone can do about it, outside of modifying the Constitution. Good luck getting a future Congress to impeach an executive.

Your solution is not going to solve the problem.

No he did not. Deportation and then following the legal immigration pathway is not amnesty. You are reaching ridiculous levels of inanity.

Trump supported legalization for the good ones in JULY.

Through the legal immigration process. Are all Cruz acolytes going to be this dense? Legal immigration X = Amnesty. But you can continue being stupid on this.
Cruz was advocating amnesty until a month ago.

Cruz while in the Senate, advocated amnesty and keeping anchor babies in the US. That’s all I need to know. When he was in elected office and should know better, he decided to adopt the liberal position. And Trump as a private citizen is not expected to know better nor know about these things in detail. Cruz is, that is what WE PAY HIM TO DO. He has a higher standard to live up to as an elected official.

He never advocated amnesty.

He did until a month ago.

That’s all I need to know. He did however fight amnesty and the Gang of 8 around the same time Trump was saying Amnesty was okay after we secure the borders.

He fought against making them citizens, not against amnesty. Trump agreed with Cruz on legal status back in 2013.

He did. Which is why Cruz’s website had its immigration section redesigned back in Sept/Oct. It looked different from the initial offering.

Cruz has been advocating a wall for years. I’d post a few videos from 2011 but I doubt you’d bother watching them.

I already have. Don’t bother. Again, Cruz is not being original on his wall/fence idea. The Secure Fence Act was passed well before 2011. California had a wall built back in the 1990’s.

You are an idiot if you believe that. People have been talking about this for years before Cruz decided to stick his Canadian nose into it.

*rolls eyes* Always the insults. Like I said, not worth my time.

Whatever cupcake.
Again, see above.

You can always admit that your wrong.

NWConservative on January 11, 2016 at 11:41 PM

Except on this one I’m not. Cruz is still the most consistent Constitutional Conservative running. Cruz supports making government smaller and sending power back to the states and an Article V convention. He’s the best choice if we want to win our country back and restore the balance of power and Constitutional checks and balances.

Like I said. We’re not going to agree. So let’s just stop this back and forth and agree to disagree.

Have a good evening.

conservageek on January 12, 2016 at 12:03 AM

Again, if you want the most consistent Constitutional Conservative running, your backing the wrong guy. It would be Rand Paul.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 12:55 AM

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 12:55 AM

As I said, we don’t agree so let’s just drop it. Good night.

conservageek on January 12, 2016 at 12:57 AM

Conservageek, it’s the same thing, ICE or any other division of the INS, is made up of vetted Americans who enforce the law. I know the cheap labor proponents like Cruz want to paint a picture of mothers and their children cowering before jackbooted thugs, but many of these illegals are not innocents, independently of breaking the law to get into the US. I’m sorry, it’s a lousy job but someone has to do it. Maybe if we finally secure the border with double and triple layer fencing, illegals (including all those Muslims recently caught with terror ties) won’t be continuously be deported over and over again.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 12:58 AM

Conservageek, it’s the same thing, ICE or any other division of the INS, is made up of vetted Americans who enforce the law. I know the cheap labor proponents like Cruz want to paint a picture of mothers and their children cowering before jackbooted thugs, but many of these illegals are not innocents, independently of breaking the law to get into the US. I’m sorry, it’s a lousy job but someone has to do it. Maybe if we finally secure the border with double and triple layer fencing, illegals (including all those Muslims recently caught with terror ties) won’t be continuously be deported over and over again.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 12:58 AM

He was most definitely referring to them as jack boots, AKA Nazis/Stasi/Etc. because as a lawyer who focus groups all his answers and replies, he knows exactly what that means.

So I expect precisely none of the Cruz people to say anything on this while their special snowflake candidate, who the rules never apply to, gets to attack Trump from the left.

The very same attacks they have gone apoplectic over when they think Trump was doing it in the past.

NWConservative on January 12, 2016 at 1:05 AM

Conservageek, it’s the same thing, ICE or any other division of the INS, is made up of vetted Americans who enforce the law. I know the cheap labor proponents like Cruz want to paint a picture of mothers and their children cowering before jackbooted thugs, but many of these illegals are not innocents, independently of breaking the law to get into the US. I’m sorry, it’s a lousy job but someone has to do it. Maybe if we finally secure the border with double and triple layer fencing, illegals (including all those Muslims recently caught with terror ties) won’t be continuously be deported over and over again.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 12:58 AM

No it really isn’t. We don’t need a new special deportation force. It’s an unnecessary proposal and is a bad idea for a multitude of reasons.

Besides that, as I said, we don’t need to create a special force. We already have a mechanism in place to deal with and deport illegals. We’ve deported millions upon millions of people (I think 10 million or so were deported during the Clinton years). The only thing lacking right now is the will to enforce the law.

conservageek on January 12, 2016 at 1:20 AM

Cruz is fine. Plus he’s smarter than Paul and Allah combined.

Prince Reebus is an a-hole.

Sherman1864 on January 12, 2016 at 1:28 AM

Conserv, stop with the red herring nonsense. Agencies and divisions in the federal govt are created all the time, for very specialized reasons. Who cares what division or part of INS does the work, it has to be done.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 2:47 AM

I didn’t think my fellow Conservatives were stupid enough to fall for a cult of personality like Don Trump. I thought only Liberals were that easily manipulated as they fainted over Barack Obama (empty suit), and now support Hillary Clinton (Felon). There are so many Red Flags that say Trump will not deliver what we want. This is not a reality show, this is our nation. Pull your heads out Republicans.

Ted Cruz is the real deal. This is the closest to Ronald Reagan as we can get. He is truly anti-establishment, like Reagan, and a real Conservative. This is our time, we prayed for a leader like Cruz to come along, yet now we have Republicans acting like Democrats and supporting the personality, and not the values and positions that are really conservative.

Sad and Disappointing.

HB Surfer on January 12, 2016 at 2:49 AM

Conserv, stop with the red herring nonsense. Agencies and divisions in the federal govt are created all the time, for very specialized reasons. Who cares what division or part of INS does the work, it has to be done.

cimbri on January 12, 2016 at 2:47 AM

How is it a red herring to say we already have the mechanism in place to deport illegals? And that we’ve deported millions without creating a new task force to do it?

conservageek on January 12, 2016 at 3:13 AM

A useful explanation of the distinction between a “natural born” citizen and a “naturalized” citizen (keeping in mind that a citizen who is “naturalized” but not “natural born” is not eligible to be President):

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/12/senator-ted-cruz-was-for-the-constitution-before-he-turned-against-it/

Aitch748 on January 12, 2016 at 8:44 AM

Here’s another viewpoint from an unbiased source: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

conservageek on January 12, 2016 at 10:07 AM

Except Cruz is no longer “the frontrunner” in Iowa–at least in the latest polls. Let’s see which candidate has their team the most FIRED up on a cold, Iowan night…

Armyspouse on January 12, 2016 at 10:49 AM

Aitch748 on January 12, 2016 at 8:44 AM

conservageek on January 12, 2016 at 10:07 AM

Thanks to both of you. More reading:-)

bluefox on January 12, 2016 at 12:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2