Establishment, Media, Trump Push 3 Attacks on Ted Cruz. They're All Ridiculous.

Daily Wire ^ | January 14, 2016 | Ben Shapiro

[Isara]

The hatchets are out for Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

In their desperation to stop the chief rival to Donald Trump and Marco Rubio/Chris Christie/John Kasich/Jeb Bush for the Republican nomination, both the Trump crowd and the establishment Republicans have now unleashed a barrage of scurrilous attacks on Cruz. I have no problem with hard-nosed politics. But I despise cheap and false campaign hits, and have defended candidates including Trump, Ben Carson and Marco Rubio from such nonsense.

Now, I'll have to defend Cruz on three fronts.

Eligibility. Trump raised the eligibility question several weeks ago as a ridiculous ploy to distract attention from his flagging poll numbers in Iowa. It's worked. The establishment, which supposed hates Trump, has refused to step in behind Cruz. Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, explicitly refused to comment on whether Cruz, born of an American mother on Canadian soil, is a "natural born citizen." Something tells me his answer might have been different had, say, Jeb Bush been the subject of the questions. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) questioned Cruz's eligibility. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the Senate wouldn't pass a resolution confirming Cruz's eligibility like they did for McCain.

How cynical and ridiculous.

Cruz is eligible for the presidency. But the establishment will continue to trot out this non-issue, and pretend Cruz is doing a rotten job putting it to bed. Today, establishment host Michael Medved, with whom I am friends and whose work I generally admire, suggested that Cruz had committed some grave sin by not giving up his Canadian citizenship until a couple of years ago. I was unaware that the United States is at war with Canada. Michael's brother, Jonathan Medved, is a dual citizen of America and Israel. Does that make him an unfit American, too?

The Margin Loan From Goldman Sachs. Today, The New York Times ran a blatant hit piece on Cruz for taking a margin loan against his own stock assets from Goldman Sachs during his 2012 Senate campaign. Here's the Times:

[I]n the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose. Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns.

This makes it sound as though Cruz and his wife took some nefarious inside deal from the cronyistic Goldman Sachs in order to run for office. Scary stuff, right? Well, first off, Heidi Cruz works for Goldman Sachs. That's no secret. Second, Cruz filed information on the Goldman Sachs loan back in 2012. So that was no secret, either. He just filed it in the wrong disclosure form.

Ted Cruz's primary runoff against Dewhurst was July 31, 2012. He publicly disclosed the margin loan July 9, 2012. pic.twitter.com/8yyV4zxrV9 - Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) January 14, 2016

Because most Americans don't understand what a margin loan is, it sounds scary and Wall Street insider-ey. It isn't. A margin loan is just a loan against your stock holdings; if the stock market were to tank, the firm would just call in their security, namely your stock. Virtually everyone who owns a significant amount of stock has taken such a margin loan. It's no different, in effect, from using an IRA rollover or taking a line of credit against your house.

Cruz's "New York Values" Line. Yesterday, Cruz sniped at Trump for playing "Born in the USA" at rallies to poke at Cruz's Canadian birth. Cruz said, "I think he may shift in his new rallies to playing 'New York, New York' because Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values." This was an ill-advised line, mainly because New Yorkers immediately began suggesting that Cruz was ripping their bravery on 9/11 and their rough and tumble willingness to take on obstacles. But of course, as everyone with any intellectual honesty recognizes, Cruz's characterization was an awkward attempt to link Trump with the social liberalism, big government, and crony capitalism of New York City. There's a reason the state of New York hasn't voted Republican since 1984. "New York values," in Cruz's awkward parlance, are California values with more stress and smoking.

That hasn't stopped both Trump and the establishment from pretending that Cruz was making light of 9/11. Here's Trump:

One thing it means is energy. You know, when the World Trade Center got hit, we rebuilt that World Trade Center and we got through and very few places in this world could have gotten through what we went through. I mean, I was so proud of New York, the World Trade Center, these two massive, 110 story buildings come down, thousands of people killed. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

He added, "When you knock New York, you've got to go through me. New York is an amazing place with amazing people."

This is silly talk. Everyone loves New York, and everyone has a love/hate relationship with New Yorkers. We love them when they're standing tall on 9/11, and we hate them when they're electing communist loonjob Bill De Blasio. It was this latter attribute Cruz was criticizing. It was a silly error, somewhat like Barry Goldwater's 1964 one-liner that he wanted to saw off the Eastern seaboard. But it wasn't a serious attack on the bravery of the people of New York City.

Some people went even further in attacking Cruz, saying that his "New York values" reference could have been a covert anti-Semitic reference. Today on his program, Medved stated that he wanted Cruz to answer whether he was making references about Jews in talking about "New York values" - a ridiculous assertion, similar to saying that "San Francisco values" is a slur against homosexuals, as opposed to the wild leftism of that city.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose Cruz's candidacy. But the cheap shots we've been seeing this week just aren't them.

[Isara]

Presidential Candidates Comparison (Cruz vs. Trump)

Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.

Budget, Spending & Debt
Civil Liberties
Education
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & Defense
Free Market
Health Care & Entitlements
Immigration
Moral Issues
Second Amendment
Taxes, Economy & Trade

More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates

[ripnbang]

Ah,yes,the tried and true “national primary” argument. OK, where do you think the state by state primary voters come from?

[South40]

(Except Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of course.)

Like minds think alike.

[Walt Griffith]

The founders clearly deifned “natural born citizen” in 1790 in their naturalization law that was required by the Constitution that was apporved in 1789.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[Walt Griffith]

The 1790 law was quoted here:

http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/primary-sources/naturalization-acts-of-1790-and-1795/

[Cboldt]

-- 1) The eligibility question ... It's Cruz's reaction to it that has kept it going in the news. --

I think his reaction has been pretty low key. He asserts it's settled. The NWO press minions and celebrity lawyers are working overtime to publish psyops on the issue. As far as the public knows, "it's settled law," in Cruz's favor.

What keeps it going is the BC is from Canada.

Cruz will bluff through this, I'm pretty sure of that. If he gets the nomination, he's in.

We are way past Orwell's 1984 here.

[dschapin]

The loan was made against his own assets in his investment account. This was a loan that anyone with investment accounts could get and required no loan officer to sign off on it. Your suggestion that this was a payoff simply shows that you have no idea what a margin loan is.

[almcbean]

I’m a Cruz guy all the way but I do think the NY line was unwise. Besides, states don’t have values, people do.

[skeeter]

Now Ben Shapiro is evil.

Surreal.

[exit82]

I find it odd that Cruz did not use his real name on the official form.

[patlin]

If Cruz supported the original intent of the Constitution, Ted would have never entered the race. All citizens are American. however, not all Americans are ‘natural’ born citizens because it takes 2 US citizen parents for a child to be natural born. Natural born means not being a citizen of another country at birth. From birth, your allegiance has been to the US and ONLY the US.

https://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ny-times-1859-natural-native-defined-by-us-ag.pdf ... https://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ny-times-1859-natural-native-defined-by-us-govt-administration3.pdf ... https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/ ...

And this one is my favorite that contains several recent Law Review articles from the top US Law schools concluding that it takes 2 citizen parents to be a natural born citizen at birth, regardless of where you were born. https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

(9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859))

“The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”

[Uncle Sham]

Hey Walt, why are you quoting from an Act that was REPEALED five years later in 1795? You are aware that James Madison and George Washington had the language changed from natural born citizen to simply citizen aren't you? Since when does a repealed law take precedent over the law which replaced it?

[Walt Griffith]

It is the only place that “natural born Citizen” is defined.

This is the only place anyone can go today to get the definition, it is found nowhere else in our history.

[Uncle Sham]

It was defined in 1795 as well. In 1795, we are shown that the 1790 definition no longer applies. We were shown that someone born outside of the jurisdiction of the United States was NOT a natural born citizen.