Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Donald Trump Targets Ted Cruz [and it's helping Cruz]
Wall Street Journal ^ | January 10, 2016 | Heather Haddon and Janet Hook

Posted on 01/10/2016 2:15:21 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

Donald Trump is taking aim at Republican presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz, a tactical shift that could be risky on two fronts: It may have come too late, and the Texas senator might actually be benefiting from the attacks......

For Mr. Cruz, being under attack by other Republicans is a badge of honor, another backer said. "It's a quasi-endorsement of Cruz to the grass roots," said Saul Anuzis, former Michigan GOP chairman.

Polls show a growing number of Trump backers see Mr. Cruz as their second choice. Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said that when the campaign began, polls showed that only 4% of Trump backers saw his boss as their second choice. A new poll by NBC/SurveyMonkey finds that number has risen to 39%.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 66% of Trump voters said they would consider supporting Mr. Cruz -- far more than other major candidates....

(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2016; 2016election; americanunionheidi; birthertrump; canadian; capsandboldtexttime; cewrightzotlol; cewrightzotted; cfrheidi; crazycatlady4cruz; cruz; cruz4attorneygeneral; cruzots; cruzowned; cruzpacowned; dcwallstreetinsider; dumptrump; election2016; ezsleazylawyerted; goldmansachsheidi; gopprimary; ineligible; lol; loonieliberal4trump; newyork; pacman; tedcruz; texas; timetotypeinallcaps; trump; trump4presssecretary; trump4subsidies; trumptardmeltdown
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-372 last
Comment #361 Removed by Moderator

To: philman_36
Another half-truth accusation, which is no better than A LIE !
READ THE LAW, DUMMY !


I can only guess as to the reason it took so long, but probably to keep Cuba from being able to recall him.
As to WHY Rafael Bienvenido Cruz fought alongside Fidel Castro's forces to overthrow Cuba's U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista, I can only guess.
I guess he didn't have a choice, being a young teenager fresh out of hight school.

WRONG!
Read it again, LIAR !
The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States.
Barack Obama Sr. was a "Transient Alien" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II,
because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so
,
at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !





1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives


Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the in PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE Of
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ? ! ?
It list the powers given to the Congress.
The third item on the list IS the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States."
Can you NOT UNDERSTAND the PLAIN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ?

Can you not READ and COMPREHEND typed writing ?

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

Have you any knowledge of WHY those changes were made ?
Don't you realize that this changes only CLARIFY the definition given by our Founding Fathers, and do it for the good of our Country ?

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW, a good start at the background and the reason for the changes, can be read at Act of March 26, 1790 eText.
362 posted on 01/21/2016 2:21:11 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
Simply AMAZING!

They cover BOTH Citizenship and Immigration, DUMMY !

But citizenship for whom? Luckily you provide the answer, yet, AMAZINGLY, you just don't recognize it.

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen

THAT is whose citizenship is covered in those statutes. Those who are already citizens, even those at birth, don't need a statute. It's as simple as that!

ALIENS need, and are granted, citizenship, not citizens!

And I'M the DUMMY? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hmmmmmmm... Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !

I don't find the words "natural born citizen" anywhere on your Wikipedia link.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

A repealed law has no bearing. You ought to be asking yourself why it was repealed.

Presidential Eligibility

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated "children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.", but "considered as" does not change the definition of the term or the fact of the physical circumstances of birth, nor can conferring a privilege by statute change an eligibility requirement in the Constitution. They made a mistake, using sloppy language, and corrected it in the next act on the subject. It is also irrelevant. It is a naturalization act, and a statute cannot change the meaning of a term in the Constitution. For that one has to go back to the usage of the term before 1787, and that means usage by Coke and Blackstone, especially Coke, in Calvin's Case. That case controls the meaning for the Founders, who regularly referred to those authors when they were unclear on legal terms of art. The early Congresses often made constitutional errors. Then as now they did not always think everything through. For that matter, the Framers made some mistakes in the Constitution, but we are stuck with those mistakes unless or until we amend it. That error was corrected by repeal with the Naturalization Act of 1795.
363 posted on 01/21/2016 3:59:22 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
"...A "Natural Born Citizen" won't hold up when the father wasn't a U.S. Citizen."
Those were your words.

Another half-truth accusation, which is no better than A LIE !

Haven't you shown yourself to be the lair?

Especially since you've so carefully proven that his Dad wasn't a US Citizen when the son was born.

Is being given "political asylum" considered as being given "citizenship"?

364 posted on 01/21/2016 4:24:47 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

  • Anyone born inside the United States *
      * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
      This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  • A final, historical condition:
      a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born,
....


365 posted on 01/21/2016 7:26:09 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got ! So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.


366 posted on 01/21/2016 7:28:10 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !

So "Damn the Constitution" and elect "the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !"

Your statement and your changing stance over the years says it all.

367 posted on 01/21/2016 7:35:13 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
So "Damn the Constitution" and elect"EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" and SOCIALIST Trump ?

368 posted on 01/21/2016 8:44:01 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
So "Damn the Constitution" and elect"EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" and SOCIALIST Trump ?

Well Hallelujah and cry Hosannas to the glory of God!
You've found my only gripe about Trump...his attempt to take private property for personal financial gain...though the city would have profited greatly as well so his actions were not his alone.

Somehow, though, I simply can't envision a Socialist doing that. They're not known to be supportive of any personal financial gain, everything belongs to the State.

369 posted on 01/21/2016 9:06:23 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Verify the definition yourself ! So how would YOU define someone who LOVES and USES "EMINENT DOMAIN" to acquire property to build his Hotels ?

Think about this:
370 posted on 01/21/2016 10:54:13 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
Verify the definition yourself !
Who the F^(K do you think you are? I'm not your flunky to be ordered around! BITE ME!

Our conversation is OVER, sphincter!

371 posted on 01/21/2016 5:24:51 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

WHATEVER ! < /sarc>


372 posted on 01/22/2016 1:19:54 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-372 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson