Posted on 01/25/2016 6:39:44 AM PST by AndyJackson
Virtually EVERY Conservative here wholeheartedly supports Senator Ted Cruz.
Virtually EVERY Conservative here would wholeheartedly support Senator Ted Cruz as the Senate Majority Leader.
Within these ranks, however, there are an unknown number of Conservatives who believe that, due to:
a) the unknown citizenship status of his father, andCruz is not eligible and "Ted Cruz for President" is an AUTOMATIC disqualifier and question mark for all things "Ted Cruz".b) Ted Cruz's birth and having spent the first four years of his life in Canada before his family emigrated to the United States,
It really doesn't matter how wonderful Ted Cruz is or might be in any other political office or work environment.
Ted Cruz, like obama, can't legally be President. Neither can Rubio nor Jindal.
Therefore, "Ted Cruz for President" is an irresistible wedge being used to, or is at least functioning to, split, divide and perhaps conquer.
Understanding who or what pushed Ted Cruz into the race for POTUS would be very helpful on many levels, but is probably not knowable on my plebeian observer level.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."I'm still learning how to observe what happens on the surface at the "see" level, as I'm looking for clues about what's happening below the surface and about what's coming next.
In this primary election, I observe that "Ted Cruz for POTUS" is functioning as a wedge that is splitting a house against itself. Curious.
If we honor our Founding Fathers, as we're to do, we wouldn't be fighting against ourselves as a house divided.
We would instead be strengthening its foundation against the coming storm.
I went to the link.
It looks like I thought it might, Cruzers are a bitter lot, willing to burn it all down, including FR, if they aren’t able to shut down opposing viewpoints.
As a former Walker supporter I’ve seen this go on for more than a year now.
The incessant “Cruz or Lose” graphics of last winter/spring have now turned into “Crus and Lose” and they are beyond bitter.
Cruz attracts a strange lot.
I have noticed a pattern among alleged Cruz supporters who are constantly posting not so much in support of Cruz but against Trump. Also some obsessively attack those who take a strong stand against illegal aliens and undesirable immigrants. Their attacks include fabrications.
It is clear enough - has anyone ever made a serious, much less successful effort to run as a conservative within the Democratic party?
Succint. Oh, and eloquent!
I did that because many of the self-appointed overlords of conservatism will claim they abide by [pay lip-service to] the other tenants of conservatism. But Kirk maintained that there were ten tenants, not three or five or seven, and the overlooked tenants demand a richness to the intellectual debate which in their absence creates a desert bare of human habitation.
So that’s where that infamous quote came from. Luntz the GOPe dunce.
The quote was from Trump & Luntz did a poll on it.
You got the cart before the horse.
Which cart and which horse?
“Trumpism is inevitable after the refusal of either party to serve the interests of most Americans.”
Brilliant!
thank you for your post.
I moved to a rural small town where everything but churches close on Sunday. When I moved here I was asked how I vote and where I go to church. I must’ve answered right because I was welcomed!
“The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.”
Interesting. I have been trying to figure out the derivation of the term from ‘conserve’. This sums it up.
So most would believe that conservation includes preserving the most beautiful vistas and natural habitats for the enjoyment of the citizenry. Voila the National Park system. Yet, some so-called conservatives decry federal ownership and preservation of our most beautiful places as overstepping the constitutional bounds of the powers of the federal government under the constitution.
Yet, even the federal government is challenged to protect the Washington mall against the predations of those who would erect a museum, at public expense, to sanctify and glorify another special interest.
BULLSEYE!
Thanks.
PS, please add me to your ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.