Ted Cruz is not a Conservative (Saturbray)

www.braylog.com ^ | 4/16/16 | bray

[bray]

Matthew 22:16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Conservatism seems to been driven off the tracks by the Punditocracy. In the old days of the movement character and transparency was every bit as important as policy matters. How can you be a free country when your leaders are hiding everything from you and shading the truth? If they will hide the truth about little issues who says they will not hide it from big ones?

We have two choices now and in reality the election is over and Trump has won it is just by how much and is it enough to overcome the establishment, but it is still two men. In July when we had seventeen candidates and Jeb was the overwhelming favorite with Walker right behind, I predicted Trump and Cruz due to Trump’s wall and Cruz’s ground game. At that time I suggested they should be a team with Trump President and Cruz VP for four years while he was trained in executive skills. I was wrong.

My hesitation at the time with Ted was his question of being a Natural Born Canadian and Heidi Cruz working for Goldman Sachs and making $800K/yr. Both of those are still a problem if not much larger and there has been so much more piled on top without being in the least bit transparent. His campaign makes the old Clinton war room seem open and airy. If you dare ax the most basic question you get hit with a hammer and demeaned in the vilest attacks, but enough about his supporters.

I have no idea what the framers of this Country had in mind when they decided to have Presidents born in America or by military families stationed overseas, but it seems a good idea you be born here. That said, the troubling part of the birther issue is his refusal to be transparent. Why does he seal all of his birth records and immigration documents to keep his citizenship hidden? Lay everything on the table and get it behind you rather than covering it up like Benghazi, this makes no sense.

Goldman Sachs is the bigger issue of the two and lends itself to his lack of character which has revealed itself over and over. If you have a company supporting your family which is the author of ever bad economic policy in America, how can you claim to be a defender of Conservatism? Nobody is asking you to take a vow of poverty and quite the opposite, but this is profiting on all of those years in the Bush Administration writing all of those free trade agreements. Free for the other Countries while putting chains on America. Goldman Sachs is the very last bank any Conservative would work for if they were who they say they are. How would he balance her making over a million a year if he were President or VP if he had to rule against them and for America?

Then there is the campaign, from Iowa to Colorado there is a pattern of behavior that is very troubling for a Christian Conservative. Whether we like it or not, Christians are held to a higher standard which none of us can attain, but at least make an attempt. He has a habit of taking the shortcut and then blaming someone else for his decision. The buck never stops at his desk and that is a problem.

Whenever he has an issue where he is obviously lying like claiming Carson was dropping out in Iowa, he claims ignorance while saying he is the smartest man in the room. The one he really cannot deny or explain is the half a million his Pac gave to the Carley Pac. Now he will claim he cannot communicate with his PAC and if you believe that there is a bridge in Brooklyn you may want to jump off. How was his campaign manager able to buy the partially nude picture of Trump’s wife and turn that over the PAC if there is not communication?

Why would any campaign which is continually short on cash give a rival campaign running for the same office and roughly the same polling position be given such a large sum of money? If there is any explanation give it, since the appearance is this was hush money to cover-up an affair with Carley’s campaign manager.

In the old days of Conservatism, the appearance of corruption was corruption however today it is until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so you stall. The same old Carvile tactic. Why did the PAC give a half million and what did Carley get for that? Both PACs should tell the truth if either one of them is honest.

Then we move to Whisky Creek and Colorado with his cozy relationship with the establishment. I remember when Conservatives would vomit if they were supported by Linseed Graham, John InSain, Jeb, Georgie Will, Kraut, National Review, WaPo, Reid and the entire GOP establishment but they ignore that to promote their version of conservatism. These people are the problem and will only make our issues worse, yet they claim it will be different this time.

After Colorado when there was not a single vote cast with Cruz taking all of the delegates we heard rules, regulations and the need to educate yourselves. Having been in one of those GOP selection caucuses here is how they work. Everyone knows exactly who they are voting for before they arrive since they have been given slates of names who to vote for of which delegates will vote for Cruz.

The ones who arrive with an open mind or intend on voting for someone else are outvoted by the slate. You vote down the slate so every chosen delegate gets the same overwhelming votes, it is pure corruption. It is all carefully choreographed and has absolutely nothing to do with the people they supposedly represent, only the kingmakers who demand their voices heard.

The one I was at was ambushed by the Paulbots who got around half the delegates even though he received 4% of the Primary vote. These charades are more like the Soviet Union than America. You can bet none of those slate delegates are under seventy or been with the Party less than forty years.

Cruz of course comes out of the Colorado fiasco blaming someone else as it is never his fault. In reality his team organized all of those slates and made sure of the outcome days before they met. You can claim they had the better ground game, but that way of selecting bound delegates has nothing to do with the voice of the people and more to do with the dictates of the Party.

There is a pattern with Ted Cruz which is very disturbing. He continually will take the shortcut on the truth and openness and then blame someone else after he gets caught. It seems we have had enough politicians who fit that mold and we really do not need more of them and especially as President. If we are going to turn America around we need to begin with honor and transparency which is lacking with Ted. This is not an indictment on Cruz as much as the conservative establishment, but some questions need open answers and apparently never will. It is time for a new direction for Conservatism, it is time to Trump the entire District of Corruption.

Pray America wakes

[BlackElk]

On resumes or GOP-E or both?

[BlackElk]

You referenced Minor vs. Happersett which is certainly irrelevant. I responded to take you by the hand and show you the distinction between irrelevant DICTA and the holding of the SCOTUS which was that the suffragette/plaintiff could NOT acquire a right to vote in Missouri by having some court cram her illegal claim down Missouri's collective throat.

Chester Arthur was elected, served and did so as a conservative whether you like it or not. Garfield had been a scary radical. His assassin stood on his chest after shooting him and said: "I am a Stalwart and Arthur is President."

Learning the law and understanding it is far more complicated than the Imhotep crowd of zombies imagines. Reading lessons are necessary but so is an understanding of rules (rules again, see?) of construction and an ability to read and apply the rules as to timely and competent filing of the endless silly appeals of the Birthers. They often don't get to a hearing on the merits of their worthless claims because they cannot be bothered with rules. Any port in a storm. They make it toooooo easy.

M3R was not mentioned in #450 to which you were ostensibly responding but five posts earlier at 445. M3R = MMMR = Moral Monster Mitt Romney.

As to Goldwater, George Romney, M3R, McCain and Obozo, you cannot waffle. You are stuck with the Birther standards even if you are more sympathetic to some than others. I think that with the possible exception of George Romney and M3R, they were eligible. If you think otherwise than that they were all ineligible, you are inconsistent.

As to this NBC hysteria, qualified = eligible.

So which ACRONYM would it be? Why?

Ummmm, Birtherism is the political and faux "constitutional" fantasy and not the mere term. Hence it is to be resisted. Birtherism was invented by the Arkansas Medusa when Obozo got in her way. It did not work for her either.

The little baby Jesus is mentioned in the constitution???? Really???? Where? Citation please. "War" is a far simpler construct and not at all controversial. "Natural Born Citizen" is more than a tad more complicated and requires definition and not yours. If the founding fathers meant what you hallucinate, they knew how to say so. They did NOT say so.

I tend not to capitalize "constitution." It is not a proper noun.

If you think that an accurate term for your eccentric "constitutional" fantasy is derogatory, that says a lot more about your views than it does about the term. When a witness before the Senate Internal Security (a likely communist stooge) repeatedly declined to give his name while claiming the Fifth, a frustrated senator finally responded: "It must be a terrible burden to go through life bearing a name the very mention of which may "tend to incriminate you."

That's an Olympian leap there to claim that I believe that British royalty could become POTUS. ROCKLOBSTER jumps the Grand Canyon at its widest point. A regular Evel Knievel without a motorcycle. Anyone of Brit Royal ancestry would have to forego that status AND have either one American citizen parent AND/OR be born in the USA to nondiplomatic personnel. There I go again with all those migraine producing (to Trumpettes) rules and complications.

The XIVth Amendment references citizenship by BIRTH OR by NATURALIZATION. Using your "logic" the moon is made of limburger just because you really, really, REALLY want it to be.

"As may Be appropriate." The amendment process and the legislative power were in all our constitutions as printed. I certainly said that but for a typo in which "be" became "me" but you knew that.

I don't capitalize "constitution" because I do not regard it as a god (and of course a false god not to be had before the one and only real God).

"GEEEEEEZZ" is a vulgar reference to your Savior and mine and is very rude to Him Who died for our sins. See Commandment 2 in Catholic Bibles and 3 in Reformed Bibles (I believe).

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

-Morrison Waite

So is this guy a "birther" too?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Birtherism was invented by the Arkansas Medusa when Obozo got in her way.

Yes, a derogatory slur on a valid convention.

The little baby Jesus is mentioned in the constitution???? Really???? Where?

Do you deny it? Do you think I'm lying?

I never heard of M3R, it must be a creation of yours.

I tend not to capitalize "constitution." It is not a proper noun.

Wrong again..."The Constitution" is.

That's an Olympian leap there to claim that I believe that British royalty could become POTUS.

Your rules would allow Prince Charles to go to Canada, get Ted's mommy "do the wild thing"...knock her up (just like the Cuban did) and BOOM!...

INSTANT "His Royal Highness the natural born US citizen". (because his mom was allegedly a US citizen)

"GEEEEEEZZ" is a vulgar reference

Gee whiz, I never knew that...Gee wilikers.

[BlackElk]

A "valid convention???" Go ahead, defend Shrillery! Her fantasy is no more valid just because you say so.

Assuming that Prince Charles is still able to farther children, Ted's mom is a little long in the tooth to be joining him in that enterprise even if she were so inclined. Also, she does not live in Canada. Does Birther orthodoxy now require an investigation into which act of intercourse caused the pregnancy leading to the candidate being conceived and where that act occurred. Waddya think? Do we need a new federal department of investigating the sexual relations of POTUS's candidates' putative parents? Leave no stone unturned! And no sexual organ uninvestigated. Sounds like a job for Larry Flynt!

M3R (Moral Monster Mitt Romney) IS my invention. How nice of you to notice! M3R is, however, personally responsible for his own despicable barbarian track record against babies and the behavior leading to that reputation should be credited entirely to M3R. Ya gotta give "credit" where it is clearly due.

Put constitution on your family altar if you wish but it is, as I understand it, a common noun. If I am disagreeing with your religious beliefs or something it is only because I am disagreeing and will not have false gods before the Real One. I thought I was just disagreeing with you on grammar or syntax. My wife is the grammar police. I'll ask her when she gets home tonight. Don't be surprised to be pulled over by her squad car.

It is your claim that the little baby Jesus is mentioned in the constitution. I asked you for a citation to the specific language and you responded with snark. That proves you don't have one unless and until you provide one. Burden of proof is on you as the proponent. I don't have to deny it. YOU have to prove it or not as you see fit.

GEEEEEEZZ is certainly a vulgar reference. So is "Gee" anything. The Donald would approve. And, at nearly 70, he says he has never had occasion to repent a single sin. Such perfection is hard to come by so he should know. I personally have not led such a blameless life. God will have to be sooooo impressed when The Donald takes his rightful place at God's Right hand and therefore lends dignity to God's abode. God will be soooooo lucky!

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Yes, NBC eligibility was true in 1776, 1876, 1976 and it's still valid today. You're just delusional .

Assuming that Prince Charles is still able to farther children, Ted's mom is a little long in the tooth to be joining him in that enterprise even if she were so inclined. Also, she does not live in Canada.

The hypothetical example referred to 1970 when he was, and she did. Try to keep up. Lyin Ted would have been blue blood (or a royal bastard)

constitution on your family altar if you wish but it is, as I understand it, a common noun.

Exactly what constitution were you referring to?

I am disagreeing and will not have false gods before the Real One.

Gimme a break, capitalizing a word is not sanctifying it, only granting it a level of importance.

I thought I was just disagreeing with you on grammar or syntax.

Well, only an anti-American or illegal alien would not recognize The Constitution as an important document. Spell check and the search engines seem to get it right.

The Bible and The Constitution are ALWAYS capitalized.

I personally have not led such a blameless life.

Boy ya got that right. Especially the Ninth "Suggestion".

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I notice you skipped right over #463. Probably a good move.

Little baby Jesus, in The Constitution?...I can prove it, but it’ll cost you.

Better do some reading.

[BlackElk]

He was a Birther Only if you assume that his opinion in the much abused Minor vs. Happersett case is the irrelevant dicta about citizenship and not the actual holding of the SCOTUS that the feminist plaintiff could not use the SCOTUS or any inferior court to force herself on Missouri which did not allow women to vote. <> Other than that little matter and the fact that you are understandably using Minor vs. Happersett without confessing that it is your source, you will note:

1. "....it was never doubted that all children born in a (sic) country (maybe even our own) of parents who were its citizens became, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Thus this is ONE group of natural born citizens to the extent that Chief Justice Waite (certainly a generally fine chief justice and better than most before or since) might be viewed as addressing the subject with the force of law rather than the plaintiff rabble rouser's sneaky and rejected attempt to turn the Waite Court into the Harlan Stone Court or the Earl Warren Court before its time in order to willfully have her way with our constitution and SCOTUS as her weapon. As Waite said, "The Constitution does not, in words. say who shall be natural born citizens." No it does not.

2. Now, follow this closely. When you were a child and someone bought you a box of crayons, that box probably included red crayons and blue crayons. Those were certainly colors, but NOT the only colors. Brown and green and black and orange and others were also colors, just OTHER colors, even if not red or blue. Their non-redness or non-blueness did not make them non-colors. As Mr. Chief Justice Waite writes: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts (i.e., some regard them as NBCs) but never as to the first (who EVERYONE agrees are NBCs). Translating legal speak dicta into plainer English.

3. Nothing, NOTHING, in the mere dicta of the much abused Minor vs. Happersett decision by Mr. Chief Justice Waite (of happy memory) EXCLUDES the citizenship claims of anyone. Hillary had not been born then whatever Comrade Grandma may look like. Thus she had not yet invented the concept of "Birther" much less was the distinguished Connecticut born Chief Justice Waite accused of being one, much less had he proven to actually be one. Rather, he was observing his belief hat even the raving suffragette was a citizen and a natural born citizen at that although she was not yet standing for POTUS if she ever did.

4. So the short answer is: No, Morrison Waite was no Birther, try though you will to enlist him in those ranks a mere 118 years after his death.

I must admit that this was at least an interesting historical exercise. I lived for many years in a Connecticut municipality in which the distinguished Chief Justice Waite never resided and I lived half a block from a significant street called Waite Street and had never been familiar with the late Chief Justice or his Connecticut origins or his general fine credentials as a conservative jurist in a very radical time (including so-called "Reconstruction" or military occupation of the prostrate Southland).

Waite had once been a Whig but many of us are guilty of youthful indiscretions and, given his subsequent distinction, he may be forgiven. OTOH, he was a Yale alumnus and, like Bill Buckley and Jim Buckley, a member of the very restrictive (20 per class chosen or "tapped" as juniors by the 20 graduating Bonesmen) Senior Society Skull and Bones and a very early one. Interesting guy.

So he was not a Birther, but a Bonesman as they are called.

[BlackElk]

The constitution was not effective until 1787 so NBC had yet to be invented in any constitutional sense.

Just you wait until Rafael Cruz finds out that you are accusing his innocent son of being Ted Saxe-Coburg-Otha rather than Ted Cruz. Ted's mom is gonna have some 'splainin' to do for being "hospitable" to Charley Long Ears who is also an envirowhacko and generally liberal like his Mum. No family resemblance at all to the Saxe-Coburg-Othas. No hemophilia either. Do you suppose Ted was immunized from the curse of Victoria's genes by his mother's peasant ancestry and peasant DNA? BTW, Americans, all REAL Americans realize that "royal bastard" is, at least figuratively, redundant. Our forebears fought a revolution to that effect and they won. It was in all the newspapers.

AND don't kid yourself about Charlie Long Ears. While his royal status could turn the head of even such a stunner as Lady Diana Spencer to turn her into Diana Saxe-Coborg-Otha, she unquestionably had, ummm, other offers shall we say even after the wedding. While Charley Long Ears was dallying with the Rottweiler and expressing his desire to be the Rottweiler's tampon (a regular Trump level class act that one!) it is rumored that Lady Diana was also otherwise engaged. Her sons seem to have actual character (given differences as to era) last seen in Lizzie II's magnificent commoner mother, Mrs. George VI.

Ours.

Anything in particular you want broken? At my age and condition, I would probably have to hire help. (Just kidding!)

Is that "Ninth Suggestion" a snarky reference to Ted Koppel's sensible reminder to leftist college alumnae in a commencement address that God gave Moses Ten Commandments not Ten Suggestions? If not, explain. OTOH, I repent my sins.

[BlackElk]

See #468.

Now you are glorifying the definite article "The." That is not called for even when referencing the Savior. Savior deserves capitalization but not "the."

I don't pay you for Birther explanations, why would I pay for an explanation of your claim that the little baby (wouldn't hat be Baby?) Jesus is in the constitution? Prove it if you can but I'll not subsidize your erroneous imagination.

Indeed, you better do some reading.

[Dr. Sivana]

I personally have not led such a blameless life.
Boy ya got that right. Especially the Ninth "Suggestion".

When did Blackelk covet his neighbor's wife?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The constitution was not effective until 1787 so NBC had yet to be invented in any constitutional sense.

No, but natural law and common law were around in 1676, probably 1576.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

When did Blackelk covet his neighbor's wife?

Wow, this is big news...I had no idea he was doing that.

Are you still beating your wife?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Especially the Ninth "Suggestion".

Speaking of Lyin' Ted. Looks like the Cubanadian GETS NOTHING in NY.

[BlackElk]

You are referencing "the Ninth Suggestion" wich sure sounds like Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife which is the Ninth Commandment as Catholics understand it. Which commandment is which may vary if you are a Reformed Christian in which case you divide the First Commandment in two, renumber the rest and merge the Ninth and Tenth as the Reformed Tenth. This is only a variance in editing since the substance of the Ten Commandments, as re-edited and renumbered, remains the same.

If you are being needlessly convoluted in sneaking around the barn and accusing me of bearing false witness against my neighbor, I don't do that either in the sense of knowing that what I might say is inaccurate and saying it anyhow. I know, I know, you wonder how that could be when I don't confuse The Donald as being God's other (non-existent) Son, a claim made by the vulgar NYC radio comic Don Imus as to himself not that other secular Manhattan values guy The Donald.

Dr. Sivana's wife is a tad younger than he and a very big and strong though very ladylike lady. He is no shrinking violet either BUT...It is a good marriage and I cannot imagine him even thinking about beating his wife or she him. Darn good parents too.

You wanna apologize to Dr. Sivana and confess bearing false witness against him and seeking his forgiveness?

[BlackElk]

No surprise there. Having been a conservative from Connecticut, I have almost never been on the same side as the NY GOP of Nelson Rockefeller, Good Time Charlie Goodell attacked as the Christine Jorgensen of the GOP by VP Agnew, Peter King, Nanny Bloomberg, John Lindsay, Jake Javits, Slippery Al D'Amato and now The Donald and the rest of the liberal NY GOP. That goes double for Wall Street and the US Chamber of Corrupt Crony Commerce.

AND again the discredited Birther crapola! You should get some new material. America got shut out tonight ad you celebrate!!!! MMMMM OK!

[BlackElk]

Natural Law is the Law of God. See the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. In our time and our system of government, instead of utilizing and applying God's Law as we should, we recognize the presence of people of other faiths than Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and various Reformed churches among us, grant them a constitutional right to freedom of religion: Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Shintos, Buddhists, Animists, Taoists, various forms of outright heathens, and even Muslims (Oh no!!!!!). So long as a person behaves him/herself in this country and does not impose on others, they are free to worship Qhomever they wish, however they wish (lawfully: no honor killings, child sacrifices, ritual rapes, etc.). Likewise what they do among themselves consistent with our laws is their business.

Common law is a far inferior thing to the Law of the One and Only God. Judges establish it to set precedents and inform litigants of what is and is not permissible. If the judge-made common law handed down to us has established what a pig is and that a human may own one, the courts in the future may rely on such a decision (or not as they see fit) in which a new precedent is set (as to the holding and not mere fluff known as dicta). The English have not any WRITTEN constitution and so a Parliamentary Act need not worry about one. The Brits do take legal tradition seriously enough to resist legislative enactments that would deprive Brits of customary rights. Common Law existed a LOT earlier than 1576. See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Law, usually available at Barnes & Noble (four hefty paperback volumes).

As common law would have it, an act of the legislature that disagrees with mere common law, overrides and supercedes that mere common law to the extent necessary. We also adopted common law just after freeing ourselves fro Great Britain and Georgie III BUT, unlike the Brits, we have a written constitution that the judges sometimes use and sometimes CLAIM to use to override legislation (see the notorious Roe vs. Wade the notorious Lawrence vs. Texas and a lengthening list of SCOTUS blunders and fantasies strangling our nation and our civilization.

Or briefly, So's Your Old Man!

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The Constitution is based on natural law.

[Dr. Sivana]

You wanna apologize to Dr. Sivana and confess bearing false witness against him and seeking his forgiveness?

I think the comment was aimed at you, Elk, not me or Mrs. Sivana. In any event, I figured he was referring to an alternate version of the Ten Commandments, and was just having a little fun with it.

No apology to me necessary. However, Elk, you refer to my wife as "big and strong". In the context of a woman that can be taken as fat and/or built like a football player. Mrs. Sivana is tall, but she is NOT big through the middle nor is she ready to play defenseman for the Edmonton Oilers. She is a lovely and gracious and intelligent and demure tall blonde lady, and I am very blessed to have her for my wife.

[BlackElk]

As you know, I know better than to disagree with your accurate description of Mrs. S.