Cruz SLAMS immigration activist with one killer question

Biz Pac Review ^ | July 2, 2015 | Michael Dorstewitz

[Popman]

Says who? CNN?

Well, of course CNN says so, but in the vast majority of polls taken on average, a majority, not a huge one, agrees

I certainly don't...

This country has changed vastly in the last six years...it does not surprise me at all the way the polls are trending...

You and I are dinosaurs...

[Bob434]

[[I think what we have are Globalists vs. any politician or citizen who puts a crimp in their agenda]]

That’s spot on- exactly what’s going on- both parties seem to be involved in it-

[[Will be interesting to see who gets on the wagon to stop them...if they can be stopped....some big players out there now]]

True- I hoep Ted’s big enough- I don’t see any other candidate that would-

[RayChuang88]

This is why I want Ted Cruz to be the Republican Presidential nominee. He would slice and dice Hillary Clinton’s arguments to pieces in a Presidential debate like a really good short-order cook does to vegetables....

[conservativejoy]

Does a treaty only have to be approved in the Senate? Yes.

Does a Trade Agreement require approval in both the House and the Senate due to tariffs and revenues? Yes.

There are components that determine whether an agreement is a treaty.

[central_va]

There is nothing racial about enforcing immigration laws.

[Popman]

with a simple majority of the house, yes-

Well, of course that's true, but many in the House need spine replacement surgery first...

You and I both know, the Senate has zero chance of finding Roberts or any other Justice guilty of the articles of impeachment

[Cboldt]

My primary point was that "rule of law", without more, is not a sound base for argument.

-- That's why Ted has been urging all states not covered by this ruling to ignore it. --

No he hasn't. He's been proposing various ways to reverse the law, constitutional amendment for retention elections being the chief remedy, I think; along with giving legal cover for those who find homo marriage to be an abomination on religious grounds.

Same with urging clerks to ignore it. Cruz is a slave to the law, and if the law says the state has to grant homo marriage licenses, and has to allow conscientious objection, Cruz's focus in on the conscientious objection part. Hardly ignoring the ruling, it is 100% abiding by it.

-- he is against this and it should be left to the States to decide and outright stated that the judges making this decision violated their oaths and should resign. --

I don't recall any suggestion that they resign or even recuse. And "leaving it up to the states" creates a substantial mess.

I'll recede from saying Cruz finds homo marriage, affirmative action, and federal control of education to be acceptable - but he does find them to be lawful, and he has not expressed any respect for civil disobedience to immoral law.

[DemforBush]

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: this crop of young guns we have running - especially Cruz - are the most media-savvy conservatives I’ve ever seen. They don’t try to be liked by the media, they don’t simply complain about media bias and then take the pounding. They engage the scum at their own game, and do it better than them. Cruz is like a fencing master, using every line of attack for a counter-thrust of his own.

[conservativejoy]

Not only do we have the right to protect our borders, we have the duty. We have allowed our laws to be trodden underfoot, and our elected officials to violate their oaths in not upholding the law for decades.

[freedumb2003]

>>Ted, they’re illegal aliens not immigrants...<<

I didn’t watch the full interview — did he call them that?

The only thing saw from the excerpt was:

“I think we should welcome and celebrate *legal* immigrants”

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Ted is the only candidate who doesn’t make me nervous when answering questions from reporters.

Great rebuttal, Ted.

[Cboldt]

Metaphorically speaking, "Tell that to Rosa Parks."

I hear you completely though, as to "that is the best I can do right now." We're all in that boat, and I'm not criticizing you. The state is going to do whatever it wants, and 99.9% of it will follow the rule of law.

One day, maybe the US government will be as odious as Hitler's, or maybe not quite tha tbad, but still a force of harm and evil; and that too will all be according to the rule of law, guaranteed.

[conservativejoy]

Not only is there nothing racial about it, it infuriates me that our immigration laws have been ignored so long. I think the majority of Americans want those laws enforced, but we have done a lousy job of holding our elected officials accountable for not doing so.

[Bob434]

[[Well, of course that’s true, but many in the House need spine replacement surgery first...]]

They may get one IF they have a leader with a spine and they retain their majority and even gain seats-

This country NEEDS a ‘Good King’ desperately- the damage has been so severe that I’m not sure we can even recover- but one of the m ost powerful statements that can be made s to put the supreme court justices on notice that their jobs are at risk for having violated their oath, violated the constitution, and betraying the country- That is the type of hardball I truly believe this country NEEDS to be playing in order to send a very clear unmistakable message that the days of lawlessness are over!

[Bob434]

and just ofr the record, my caps are only for stressing key words or concepts, I’m not yelling to make a point- just stressing hwat I believe are key points

[conservativejoy]

Maybe we should all write to our Reps and Senators and suggest that they use their Cadillac insurance plans to have spinal replacement surgery.

After successful surgery, they can start by replacing Boehner and McConnell.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— As long as “whatever it is” gets stamped with “rule of law,” it’s acceptable? Is that the standard? -—

Tough question. We can’t pick and choose which laws to obey, otherwise we have anarchy. OTOH, if a law mandates an intrinsic evil, we must disobey it.

[Hostage]

> “Well, of course CNN says so, but in the vast majority of polls taken on average, a majority, not a huge one, agrees”

I disagree strongly. One Huffington Post ‘poll’ said 65% of Americans favor same-sex ‘marriage’ which they termed “gay marriage”. Huffington Post is a sanctuary for the Lavender Mafia.

I’ve been around enough to see how liberals have expanded out into so many so-called ‘news websites’ and established their talking points with made-up outright falsehoods. Did you know that Politico is supported each month by massive subscriptions from Obama’s government offices?

But here’s the fact:

38 states have either passed legislation to define marriage as between one man and one woman, or have passed bans on same-sex marriage, or voted down initiatives for “Marriage Equality”, or amended their state constitutions to define traditional marriage.

That’s 38 states! Enough for a constitutional amendment.

I have a PhD in Statistics. I can tell you with 100% confidence that if someone paid a statistical surveyor to get a poll showing public support for same-sex ‘marriage’, it would be no problem at all. It’s easy to do. But if I am allowed to see the survey, the question context and framing. the sample plan, the non-responses, the ‘polite’ responses, the ‘paranoid and fearful responses’ the mode of data acquisition, the region and demographics, I would be able to tear apart any such ‘poll’ as garbage. And I have in my many years done so to many ‘polls’.

Another recent phenomenon is internet polling and internet push-button polling. I see push polls included on Huffington Post webpages. Those are guaranteed to get 95% liberal responses. Then the poll will combine with a smaller sample taken from a website like ‘National Review’ which gets maybe 20% to 30% liberal to moderate response, and the combination is designed to give a 58% liberal favored response to make it look realistic.

Do not ever trust polls.

Also if you live in a liberal, moderate neighborhood like Seattle, you will find many residents will remain quiet or will offer a moderate response even though they are conservatively minded. They are afraid of retaliation.

[Vermont Lt]

I have just finished reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

The process of growth of the Nazi Party was fascinating from a sociological point of view. The “hatred” part of it was foreign to me, and I do not think it would fly in the US. But the patriotism angle and the “inferiority” complex could certainly work here.

Fortunately the structure of our politics would not allow a dictator to take over without a much larger portion of the electorate.

Don’t take me the wrong way, the Nazis were nuts-—by anyone’s measure—but the process and the political maneuvering was genius. It shows the importance of delivery of the message. If a crazy message is well crafted, people will buy it.

[Cboldt]

-- We can't pick and choose which laws to obey, otherwise we have anarchy. OTOH, if a law mandates an intrinsic evil, we must disobey it. --

Did Rosa Parks violation of the law create anarchy? Gandhi, anarchy? And Gandhi was a radical application of civil disobedience, about as radical as it gets.

I think some amount of friction between "law" and "civil disobedience" is inevitable, all the time. But the more that government with its law and regulation expands, and in our case the feds have expanded wildly outside of its constitutional boundary, the more opportunity for friction.

See too, states in open violation of federal pot laws. Anarchy?

I'd like to hear some political leaders offer up a vision of a smaller federal government, with some particulars, spiced up with some red meat rhetoric that SCOTUS is wrong, the fed laws are NOT constitutional, and are VOID, but we'll follow them out of a sense to keep good order until the legal errors can be rectified.

What we have been hearing is something along the lines of the law is so perfect that it has to be followed until it gets straightened out by a legislature or a court. Like it is imperative, because if we don't, well, the whole edifice crumbles. How about the law show a bit less arrogance, and a little more humility; and how about poking a stick in the eye of the law by refusing to follow it, where such action does not result in harm.