The Truth about Ted Cruz, and Why He Can Unite Americans and Beat Hillary

Off Grid Blog ^ | April 17, 2016 | Charles S. Meek

[grumpa]

Here are two videos. The first one is the Ted Cruz story. It is a real story, is short (11 minutes), is powerful, and for many people is emotional--which one might expect from a scripted ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hrms1ACMn0&feature=youtu.be&t=294

This second video is an interview of Cruz on CNBC. It is unscripted and less emotional, but is full of facts and information. It is long--46 minutes. But it is important to watch because it displays Cruz's knowledge about the economy, and demonstrates how different Cruz's grasp of history and the economy is from his opponents. This is critically important. Watch it and think about how Trump or Hillary would answer these questions.

http://therightscoop.com/must-watch-ted-cruzs-full-appearance-on-cnbcs-squawk-box-puts-donald-trump-to-shame/

No other candidate has a grasp on the economy, growth, and taxes as Cruz has.

[McGruff]

Cruz is being used by the GOPe to stop Trump.
When he serves his purpose they will dump him.

[ShivaFan]

In an election cycle where the Republican base majority is clearly anti-establishment, anti-same-old-”rules”, who have had enough of Republican grandees conspiring to deny their voice, the votes of the base, ignoring the mandate of the majority and their desires, ignoring us, treating us like low caste untouchables, who are sick of the GOPe same-old-same-old and sick of politicians and sellouts like Ted Cruz and his voterless “victories” and his disgusting GOPe Falangist double agent delegates and his “maneuvers” that are a slap in face of the Republican base and expose Cruz not as “smart” but makes obvious his GOPe agenda and exposes the gulf between Washington’s elites such as the Cruz Party Syndicalists and party rank-and-file, the fact that it is npt clear and transparent, it is gaming the system to shut us up, exposes Cruz as a totally unprincipled slap in the face of the base and their desires, Cruz who would hardwire this abomination into the system for decades and disenfranchise all of us in the base so that the GOPe can do this to us again, and again, and again, and again, and like tactics within every level of the system including into Congress itself and has an agenda to deny all of us the vote in all cases and not just the “primary”, the TRUTH IS THIS:

NO ONE IS DESTROYING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, DISENFRANCHISING THE BASE AND THE ENTIRE ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT REJECTION OF THE GOPE CASTE SYSYEM, ALIENATING AMERICANS ENMASS AWAY FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, DIVIDING THE PEOPLE AS CHATEL TO THE ELITE, NO ONE IS DESTROYING ANY CHANCE TO DEFEAT HILLARY AND WHO IS DRIVING AWAY MILLIONS OF REPUBLICANS FROM THE PARTY LIKE TED CRUZ IS RIGHT NOW.

He is a bigger disaster than even Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell, or his good friends the Bush Cartel et all.

Ted Cruz must be stopped.

[Hugin]

Ted Cruz used to be universally liked here on FR. Now that we’ve seen the real Ted many, maybe a majority of Freepers find him disgusting. To know him is to loath him.

Yeah, he’ll unite people, right.

[Donglalinger]

Anybody that can win 4 primaries where people can actually vote should beat Hillary easily

[sargon]

Ted Cruz has lost. He will have been mathematically eliminated after the next Tuesday or two. His only hope was to get the nomination at a contested GOP convention, which would irreparably splinter the party, and guarantee a GOP defeat in November.

Simply put, that's not going to happen. Not even the crooked GOPe is that stupid.

Vote Trump

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

[Leto]

That is incorrect, he has introduced legislation to fund the wall in congress. Additionally he has proposed enforcing existing law. This is a very radical idea, and can be done by the president.

The results would include

No funding to Sanctuary Cities

No federal benefits for illegals

No touch and go amnesty (which Trump has stated he would allow), leave and don’t come back.

Enforcing the EVerify system with punishment for employers.

If we just enforce the casting laws the illegals will leave, and not come back. It doesn’t involve passing any new legislation, or making “deals”. The Executive has the power to do what Clinton, Bush, and Obama haven’t done.

Did you know the wall is already law?

[Windflier]

Cruz was born in Canada, so it’s all a moot point anyway.

Even if he somehow managed to wrangle the nomination away from Trump, the Dems will find a judge to rule he’s ineligible. They’ll take it all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, and they will win.

Sadly for us, the court would be right in that ruling. Hillary may be the absolute scrum of the earth, but she’s a natural born citizen, per the Framers’ understanding. Cruz is not.

[AustinBill]

That’s an excellent interview and is one of the reasons a lot of Trump supporters were originally enthusiastic about a Trump/Cruz ticket. It would be nice to think that the last few months of bad blood could be rolled back and some sort of rapprochement could be reached between these two.

[Windflier]

Obama has said that our southern border is “secure”. How’s that any different from what Cruz has said?

Tell me where Ted has called for an impenetrable barrier of any type at the Mexican border? I don’t remember him calling for that a single time, much less making it a major plank of his campaign agenda. Maybe I’m wrong and you can correct me.

‘Secure the border’ is a weasel phrase that can mean anything a Washington politician wants it to mean.

[planesman]

So true, but we have a ways to go yet. This delegate count could get very interesting in the coming weeks.

Here’s a good analysis.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/creinstein/2016/04/16/actual-delegate-count-full-breakdown/

[M. Thatcher]

He’d have to win the nomination first and that’s not happening.

I wonder why the Cruzites can't see that? Twenty-five percent national support is just embarrassing at this point.

[Maine Mariner]

I am not sure Cruz is the worse candidate that could face Hillary. There are candidates that would do just as poorly:
Jeb Bush, Robert Dole, John McCain, and everyone’s favorite,
Mitt.

[Tigen]

Sorry this is an incorrect assumption.

[TXnMA]

I hate to tell you, but this post was a total waste of your time and energy.

With your shoes on, you can count on your toes the number of trumpesterers who will even stoop to watch either of these videos -- or, more specifically, have the maturity to allow their mindless adulation to be affected by them.

While FR was down, I scouted around for alternate sites for FR, and all that I found were overloaded by paid Trump placard-wavers to the point of uselessness.

Conservatism as a principle and a movement is all but dead -- killed by a money-strewing, florid-faced, foul-mouthed carnival huckster -- and the weak-minded who slavishly slither along behind him -- mesmerized by his off-pitch pipes and ever-changing promises...

~~~~~~~~~~~

Worthy attempt, though; I will watch -- and consider -- your linked videos. But, then, I also consider myself a member of that vanishing breed, the principled conservative.

Thank you!

[21twelve]

There’s only one person generating excitement and bringing out tens of thousands of everyday Americans out to neighborhood caucuses to vote all across this country and his name isn’t Trump.

I guess we will see which is the winning strategy - neighborhood caucus or huge rallies. They both have merit.

[MaxFlint]

A large scale survey has been conducted to determine Ted Cruz's popularity with the voters. It's known as the Republican primary. In that survey Ted is stuck in second place. If Ted can't beat Trump with the voters how is he going to beat Hillary Clinton?

And what states will Cruz win that Romney lost?

[DJ MacWoW]

Boots on the ground, plus a wall
Border wall: James and Leppert oppose a wall, Dewhurst and Cruz tout "boots on the ground" and a wall in some places.
Source: BurntOrangeReport.com on 2012 Texas Senate Debate , Apr 18, 2012

Triple the size of the Border Patrol
Cruz on immigration: Wants to triple size of Border Patrol. Says Dewhurst supported in-state tuition for kids of illegal immigrants.
Source: KVUE coverage of 2012 Texas Senate debate , Mar 29, 2012

Build a wall instead of massive amnesty plan
Q [to Sen. Rubio]: You describe a very long path, but does that path end at citizenship?

RUBIO: After ten years in probationary status, where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card. That may not be a majority position in my party, but that's down the road. You can't even begin that process until you prove to people--not just pass a law that says you're gonna bring illegal immigration under control--you're gonna have to do it and prove to people that it's working.

CRUZ: There was a time for choosing, as Reagan put it. There was a battle over amnesty and some chose, like Senator Rubio, to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and support a massive amnesty plan. Others chose to stand with the American people and secure the border. And I tell you, if I'm elected president, we will secure the border. We will triple the border patrol. We will build a wall that works and I'll get Donald Trump to pay for it.
Source: 2015 CNN/Salem Republican two-tier debate , Dec 15, 2015

Ted Cruz On The Issues - Immigration

[Mechanicos]

Despite the Cruz-crafted tough talking anti-illegal propaganda you posted. Rafael went to the border to hand out Gift Baskets to illegals. His actions speak much louder then his words.

[Mechanicos]

21twelve said:

“There’s only one person generating excitement and bringing out tens of thousands of everyday Americans out to neighborhood caucuses to vote all across this country and his name isn’t Trump.”

That is correct, Its its the GOPe NeverTrump machine as we saw bragging about it in Colorado

NeverTrump is not for Cruz. All those State party officers donors and Bush campaign staff lined up long in advance are not actually supporting Cruz for the nomination.

BTW, where was this so-called awesome ground Game before the GOPe was called into save Cruz’s losing campaign?