DIANA WEST: IT’S TIME TO RALLY AROUND DONALD TRUMP

BREITBART.COM ^ | 26 DECEMBER 2015 | DIANA WEST

[Helicondelta]

Bozell states that Cruz is the one candidate who will return the United States to "her Constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian values," explaining:

On every issue of crucial importance to conservatives-defunding Planned Parenthood, ending the Obamacare nightmare, reducing the size of government, opposing amnesty-Cruz is not only with conservatives, he's led the fight for conservatives.

To be honest, if these were the only issues under discussion in this GOP presidential primary season I would hardly be able to make myself pay attention. It's not that they are unimportant issues. Personally, I support every one of them. But they are not existential issues.

...

As Trump makes clear, our country's representatives have no clue. Worse, they seem content to remain in ignorance no matter how many Americans die, no matter how far sharia spreads. Not Trump. When you think about it, his call for a Muslim immigration moratorium is really a no-brainer - but whose "politically correct" brain is capable even of thinking of it, let alone calling for it out loud? I regret to say that Sen. Cruz does not support Trump's moratorium, deferring instead to a rosier vision of Islam and immigration screening both in order, politely, to reject it.

That's too bad, but so it goes, further testament to the fearless, agenda-setting powers of Trump. It's really quite incredible: soon, maybe even before it's too late, GOP primary voters will have a clear choice on walls, borders, immigration, even Islamic immigration (and, I would hope, the related issue of Islamic law), all because Donald Trump plucked these crucial issues from the void where the politicians, including good conservatives, have been eager to leave them.

Go Trump!

[Gratia]

It’s Trump or goodbye America.

Cruz is a candidate for long ago.

Reagan provided needed leadership against the Evil Empire. Trump is the needed leadership against the total loss of America and the unique principles of America.

[Democratic-Republican]

Okay, I'll bite. You posted this graph ...

Now there are four broad scenarios for Trump or any other person with respect to donations ...

• All his donations are "red" ... meaning all (R)epublicrat, and he could be accused of being of the crony donor class like Koch and some hedge funders who love illegal alien cheap labor here and slave labor abroad.

• All his donations are "blue" ... meaning all to(D)ummycrat socialists like you would expect from scoundrels like Soros and countless others

• He has no donations whatsoever ... and then he would be criticized for not caring a wit about America or too stupid to get engaged

• The donations are mixed ... which they are, and are completely understandable to anyone with a three digit IQ and who lives in the real business world where you encounter actual people other than your own self. His business more than most depends upon greased palms and open doors. We may not like it but that world exists outside your door,

Now would someone like to explain to me how his donations are anything other than perfectly reasonable and understandable?

Am I to understand that we should want only those who have a perfect track record of contributing only to (R)INOs? Since the bulk of the (R)epublican politicians are in fact RINOs there is no way to be a large donor and not end up funding those traitors as there are very few Cruz and Lee type politicians these days, or any day for that matter. Therefore, we should be wishing that Trump's donations mirrored those of a Romney, or McCain? Well isn't that exactly what Bush is? Isn't that exactly what our problem is? We're thinking outside the box here man.

Furthermore, doesn't anyone see the value in this kind of track record when the general election comes along and the guy needs votes from those you apparently despise? This is an advantage, not a black mark against him. He has to get those votes, and so would you if you were running. If you think you can win without getting crossovers then you are mathematically and historically challenged.

So how does this graph speak ill of him? Logically there is just no significance to this. He is running for President of the United States, not the RNC. It shows he is not a slave to the elitist (R)INO donor class which has murdered us at every opportunity and despises us with every fiber of their being.

[Democratic-Republican]

"It'll be a cold day in hell. I don't rally behind liberals in conservatives clothing."

Never?

2008 ... ?

2012 ... ?

I could add 2000 and 1988 and 1992 and 1996.

Heck, even Reagan was liberal compared to me.

Assuming you pulled the lever opposite Obama in those years, you are going to have a massive dose of cognitive dissonance rationalizing voting for the Amnesty and Romneycare RINOs while currently swearing off the only, and I mean only candidate to face illegal aliens head-on. The subject would have never come up, and Amnesty a foregone conclusion, just like your RINOs had planned all along.

Be truthful now, were you one of those insisting that we vote for the lesser of two evils? Is a known RINO a better bet than an unknown non-politician with no roll call track record?

[Aleya2Fairlie]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/ted-cruz-democrats-fears-muslims/2015/12/23/id/706991/

I’ve posted this link several times so please forgive if you’ve seen it already. This interview, along with what Cruz said behind closed doors to his owner/donors awhile back completely convinced me that he’s just another waffling, double speaking Washington politician. It does seem however, that many people just can’t endure Trump’s honesty and would rather be lulled by a soothsayer like Cruz.

Yes, it’s time we rally around Donald Trump against the huge amount of hostile forces against him. I just can’t see much hope for our Republic unless he wins. Until he came on the scene with his brutal honesty and independence from Washington forces; I had given up on the America that my father loved and fought to preserve. He would have loved Donald Trump too.

[RetSignman]

He has effectively been a ‘whistle blower’, not only on himself as once being part of the hypocrisy but of the Washington establishment, the media and the scam of super pacs.

He has laid bare the corruption and deceit of our election process that has plagued us for decades and the ‘roaches’ involved are running for cover.

Go Trump.

[Sasparilla]

Interesting that pro Trump posts continue to run about two to one versus pro Cruz in almost every thread on FR.

[Aleya2Fairlie]

“I do not believe that this is an accurate summary of Senator Cruz’s position in this issue. Nor does the author give an accurate summary of Trump’s position, as I understand it after his walk-back.”

Please use the link on Post# 44 and listen to what Cruz himself says in the interview. It’s just more of the same Washington pandering to both sides of an issue that is going to result in dire consequences. We have no more time to watch politicians dance around this threat.

[Theo]

No.

It’s time to rally around Ted Cruz.

[papertyger]

Tossing out suggestions for programs without a clue as to whether they can be accomplished or not is not the sign of a thoughtful candidate. It's the sign of someone that throws out the first thing that comes to mind.

How many times do his critics have to be made fools of before you figure out you haven't got a clue?

[jaydee770]

“...I don’t consider him to be a NBC. No matter how this may be spun...in my mind he is not NBC and should I vote for him out of necessity only would make my heart weep...”

Cruz has readily affirmed his birth as a US citizen born abroad. He has *no* reason to hide it. Ted Cruz’s mother was an adult US citizen when Ted was born and it was her status as a US citizen, above the age of majority, that bestowed Ted’s US citizenship at his birth. He had no need to be “naturalized”.

But wait, there’s more!

The first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, a mere three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that, “...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...”

Unless you can find another, I believe it is the only US statute ever to use the term “Natural Born Citizens”.

Why is this old act significant? This statute was passed by a congress that included members who were *ALSO* authors of the US Constitution - the founding fathers! That is significant in my eyes!

Now you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, but if Ted Cruz’s citizenship was good enough to be considered NBC by the founding fathers, then who are we to argue with them?

Now, you can have all manner of disagreement with Cruz on everything from his policies to how he parts his hair. But I see no valid argument that claims he is not NBC, unless that argument accepts that it’s main point(s) also disagree with the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was passed by a congress that included founding fathers and authors of the Constitution.

Good luck with it!

[papertyger]

It’ll be a cold day in hell. I don’t rally behind liberals in conservatives clothing.

Enjoy your exile.

I think Phyllis Schlafley's a safer bet than you.

[Aleya2Fairlie]

He cares about the little guy. It*s not just about him.

When you can not only post the number of “fishes” that Donald Trump has given away; but a graph showing all the people he’s taught to fish and provided a place in which to do so; I’d really like to see those graphs.

[jpsb]

The problem with Cruz is that he is while he is a brilliant lawyer, he is a lawyer. You can never trust a lawyer to tell you the truth about that they think. So Cruz the wordsmith leaves himself an out on just about every issue! He changes his positions with ease if experiencing political head winds. With Trump what you see is what you get. He plainly speaks his mind and then doubles down when taking flack. Cruz is acceptable but Trump is much preferred.

[DoodleDawg]

How many times do his critics have to be made fools of before you figure out you haven't got a clue?

I would ask the same of his fanatical supporters.

[Democratic-Republican]

"But wait, there's more!

The first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, a mere three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that, “...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..."

Unless you can find another, I believe it is the only US statute ever to use the term "Natural Born Citizens".

Why is this old act significant? This statute was passed by a congress that included members who were *ALSO* authors of the US Constitution - the founding fathers! That is significant in my eyes!"

Dude, not even a good try. There is a HUGE problem with your statement there. It is extremely significant, to use your own words. It is so enormously significant that you will likely be embarrased that you wrote that, or quoted from some armchair Constitutional hack. Ready? Here goes ...

You just said that the Constitution was Amended by an act of Congress.

Full stop.

The principle author of the Constitution who was a member of the 1st Congress sent up twelve Amendments for consideration and eventually released to the state legislatures, ten of which were ratified as the Bill Of Rights, and none of them contained that language you are so thrilled to relay here ( and BTW, which was later significantly changed again not 5 years later ).

Note that they were deliberated in the Congress and then sent to the several States. Then they were deliberated again. Then they were voted on to be ratified or not. The point is that your hypothesis was, well let's just say it, unConstitutional by definition. Congress proposes. They cannot Amend ( thankfully ).

The simple proof would be found in our own yelling and screaming had one of those many leftist progressive socialist communist Congresses in the past 100 years had simply redefined "arms" or "speech" or "possessions" as a quasi-Amendment in the same manner you just endorsed.

Pretty sure this is not a line of argument that Cruz himself would ever pursue since he himself does know a whole lot about the constitution. Can't say the same for some of his supporters though.

[jaydee770]

“...He changes his positions with ease if experiencing political head winds. With Trump what you see is what you get...”

Heh! What were Trumps views on any given issue in the recent past (3 months ago? a year ago?)? Are you honestly saying Trump’s positions haven’t changed, “with ease if experiencing political head winds”? Ahem!

Now if you support Trump, that’s fine. You can viscerally *hate* Cruz as well and that’s fine. But if you go around accusing other candidates of what your own candidate is *also* known for... well, that tends to reflect badly on you.

Good Luck with Trump!

[Duchess47]

Great article, thanks.

[papertyger]

I would ask the same of his fanatical supporters.

In what PeeWee Herman fantasy does that response to my question make ANY sense?

[ripnbang]

Nice try....a couple of events in Paris and San Bernardino happened after the O’Reilly episode. Trump is able to quickly assess a situation realize a different path is necessary and execute it. Unlike a politician that will see which way the wind is blowing, first. And lastly, Trump said to temporarily ban Muslim immigration until our government can figure out what the hell is going on which again shows his leadership abilities as both DHS and FBI said we cannot adequately vett the refugees, not just an outright ban, unlike other candidates however, who took the political expedient position and would not commit.