Posted on 01/31/2021 7:59:22 PM PST by bimboeruption
Senator Cruz is an example of a Republican who will never win a national election and especially moving forward after the 2020 election. Democrats BRAZENLY used EVERY TRICK in their bag to steal victory in November 2020. And they did it without a hint of shame.
In this week’s video, Senator Ted Cruz accused President Donald Trump of spouting “overheated rhetoric” about the election and failing to present evidence of voter fraud.
Starting at the 16:52 mark of the January 25th, 2021 episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz states the following:
Senator Ted Cruz: “President Trump’s rhetoric, I think, went way too far over the line. I think it was both reckless and irresponsible because he said repeatedly—and he said over and over again—he won by a landslide; there was massive fraud; it was all stolen everywhere. That evidence, the campaign did not prove that in any court, and to make a determination about an election it has to be based on the evidence, and so simply saying the result you want, that’s not responsible and you’ve never heard me use language like that. What I’ve said is voter fraud is real, and we need to examine the evidence, and look at the actual facts; and in particular, what is the evidence of how much voter fraud occurred, and did it occur in sufficient quantities and in sufficient states to alter the outcome of the election. That would have been the mandate of the election commission; to assess.”
And later around the 25-minute mark, he refers to the events of January 6th, 2021 as “a terrorist attack on the United States Capital.”
Republicans better wake up! They either act now or the GOP will be the minority party in the United States moving forward.
Case in point: your pal, Gerald Lefcourt (as mentioned above in post #255), was the lawyer for the Black Panthers. There’s a charming video of him and client Abbie Hoffman on YouTube, in which The Honorable Mr. Lefcourt relates to the press that he had a great time in a Chicago jail cell hanging out with Bobby Seale the night prior, for contempt of court.
It’s always a good idea to check your sources.
It's the logic and the law that counts, not the opponent's morality. Use your head. Your information does not torpedo my point--it enhances it.
I don't know why, unless you can't accept that the references cited can be proved false. Can you?
WaPo is certainly not my favorite source, but if their report of the progression of the court event was factual and complete, the account stands as written. And so it seems to be, easily disproved if false.
You can take offense, but your thinking was already tainted by lack of impartiality. And you continue in that mode.
So who is doing the condescending, eh?
Politics is a blood sport. You need to accept that reality. “Gentlemen” don’t often succeed in that arena, particularly when those on the other side are as vicious and unprincipled as they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are.
A perfect example of this was Ben Carson’s run.
Trump being what he is, good and bad, got him elected in 2016 against an opponent who greatly underestimated him.
Establishment Republicans see Trump’s election as an aberration of “the way things are supposed to be” caused by the people they allegedly represent throwing an irrational temper tantrum.
Trump was and still is a threat to the political establishment’s ongoing grift, and the judiciary is part of that since they have given themselves the power to reject out of hand any filing that they feel doesn’t meet their stringent standards, especially when they fear that a just decision might upend their safe, comfortable world.
McCain got to play candidate because it was his turn, and the same with Romney. Both played the game by your gentlemanly rules, and lost.
Trump did all the wrong things and broke many of your rules, and won.
And Ronald? 2nd term in a vicious field?
That article you referenced is fine and generally makes sense to me (and is how I have always viewed it) but I was specifically trying to understand your stance on "natural born" citizenship as a component of "Natural Law", and I couldn't make the connection. (This is distinct from the term "Naturalized Citizen" which is the process by which a foreigner becomes an American citizen. I dislike that term, and think it is to easily confused with "natural born".)
I don't understand why people had an issue with McCain's "citizenship". I came through the first decade of this century with an increasing distaste, then dislike, and finally, open and unmitigated detestation of him. I had personal reasons for taking that long to view him in that light, but I eventually did.
That said, there is plenty of ground to despise him, but I have never, ever thought his citizenship was in question.
Both his mother and father were American citizens, there is no question about that. That he was born overseas is of no consequence to me. I grew up in a military family and travelled all over the world, and saw pregnant women who were wives of military personnel giving birth on bases overseas. If my mother had been pregnant and given birth to me overseas, is someone going to say I am not an American citizen, or ineligible to run for President? Of course not.
What if a pregnant American citizen married to another American citizen was visiting relatives just over the border in Canada and gave birth prematurely? I don't think that means her child is not a naturalized citizen.
In that light, I fully recognize and accept that a child born to two American Citizens whose allegiance to the United States is not in question that is born anywhere in the world is a full American citizen up to an including running for President of the United States. To say otherwise requires complicated and messy bureaucracy and red tape to take into account diplomatic or military personnel, Americans traveling abroad, etc.
However, I am fully and unequivocally onboard on four specific items:
To be naturally an American one must be both Jus Soli and Jus Sangiune.
Soil and blood.
McCain was chosen as the Designated Loser for the Kenyanesian Usurper specifically because his case would elicit sympathetic responses.
Everyone knows his father was an Admiral in the US Navy and was then stationed in Panama.
McCain was born in the country of Panama, not the Canal Zone, which at the time was US soil.
He refused to release his birth certificate because that would be revealed.
Children born to US citizens abroad are US citizens, but they are not natural born citizens.
That is made clear by reading the 1790 Naturalization Act where they say children born to citizens parents overseas shall be regarded as natural born citizens, clearly indicating they are not, that act was repealed 5 years later with that language removed when they realized their error.
http://usnaturalborncitizen.com/meaningofnaturalborn.html
Every tab in the sidebar is a separate article.
Until the 1960s the military would tell expectant mothers to return home to give birth to preserve natural born citizen status. It only matters for President. (and it matters ALOT as we found out)
My friend who was born in Germany 1960 (his father US Air Force there) and was told he was a US citizen but not a natural born citizen eligible to be President.
I wonder why McCain's mother didn't head back to the CONUS to give birth to him?
My guess is she was planning to have him in the Canal Zone (which was US soil at the time) and circumstances intervened and he was delivered in Colon, Panama.
I think travel was a little different in those days...not like jumping on a 737!
Cruz blows hot and cold.... it does no one any good to change with the wind!
As for evidence.... where have you been?!!!!!!
The one thing that is gone...missing... is common sense. common sense is the good sense to use your thinker when all else fails. if you use that ... common sense... you won’t be caught without ....
Common sense is the ability to see things...many things... over time...and learn... judge... etc...
So with common sense, Trump has held many rallies and there has been no violence with the attendees.. BUT... the other side is full of riots .. destruction.. and mayhem...
no evidence on the election.... the fact there was no cooperation to find the evidence among the many who came forward and told what they saw.. the fact no one was interested in truth... tells us there was plenty!
ya know... they don’t like us...they don’t like Trump... they don’t want to be associated with any of us..
I had a little thing happen that said all this.
This man is an ardent Trump supporter... he thinks he has done all good things for the country and fellow man. this man is also very educated and very ahead of most in brain waves.... he works among the elite...
I heard this man... voted for Trump... all the way...and can’t talk in favor of Trump now that the uglies have a seat. So in frustration for being a cast off for supporting and seeing Trump get booted.... he said “he should talk right and not act like a kid.” this is where they all are that are anti Trump... but they forget.. handily ignore..the good he has done. Some of the elite have not been touched by every day items anyway.
When comparing any “kid” to socialism....the kid wins...if I was real smart and lived among the elite... maybe I would be tainted in that direction? naw....!!!
Thank you for sending that link to me, by the way.
It took me a while to get to it, and I have had to think on it. I made the error (as a sailor and an amateur historian) of looking at cases of aggression and legal action against embassies and military bases in a foreign country, (both of which most lay people regard as US territory, which they apparently aren’t) and making logical conclusions from that.
I am curious-why do you think, in the days of weeks and months to get from point A to point B back in the late 18th century, that they specifically say that only children born to two citizens on American soil are “Natural Born” and thus only eligible for the Presidency. Is it that a child born on foreign soil may be eligible for dual citizenship and thus have a potentially divided allegiance?
Is that the only consideration?
Anything that might result in divided allegiance loyalty or citizenship, be it location of birth or foreign parents, negates natural born citizen status.
I know how you feel about it, having read it often in your many posts on the subject, I was asking your opinion on the founder’s intentions.
There is little that I can find in the Federalist Papers that sheds light on this which is where I usually start looking, but I admit I have probably not scoured it hard enough.
They used Vattell’s Law of Nations as a reference.
The letter from John Jay to George Washington insisting on a natural born citizen still exists.
More at this link:
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
http://usnaturalborncitizen.com/vattel.html
I read that linked letter earlier, and it didn’t really answer my question. Perhaps I asked it poorly:
Why would the born child of two citizens born outside the borders be unfit to be President or in Jay’s specific objection, “Command in chief of the american army”? In a world where it might take months to take a journey (instead of hopping on a 747 and being back on US soil in under 24 hours) why would a child, born to citizen parents on foreign soil be considered unfit for those jobs? Is it solely due to the danger of a dual citizenship from being born on the soil of a country like the USA which gives citizenship to anyone born on the soil of the USA, and thus having a divided allegiance? Even if the country specifically did NOT grant citizen to those birthed on their soil?
That is, did the Framers just make it a blanket denial of inclusion in the “natural born” category because they recognized that laws in any country, can change at any time, and trying to determine who was born where in what time under which laws at that time could be dangerously unpredictable?
How many here excoriated Trumpers in 2015 when this was Cruz Country...
Maybe I am misreading this, but seems Cruz threw Trump under the bus.
Someone in TX needs to send Cruz Mike Lindell’s “Absolute Proof” documentary.
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.