Posted on 01/30/2016 5:19:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Conservatives have been hoping that "another Reagan" will come along for decades and we finally have one: Ted Cruz.
Like Reagan, Ted Cruz is not popular with the establishment wing of the Republican Party. In fact, you'll often hear it said that, "Some people don’t like Ted." There is truth to that and I would encourage you to judge Ted Cruz by his enemies.
Liberal Democrats fear Ted Cruz because they know he's a strong, principled conservative that can’t be browbeaten, pushed around or bought off. While many other Republicans insisted that we wave the white flag to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, again and again, it was Ted Cruz who called on conservatives to stand up for what they believe in instead of buckling at the knees.
Republicans who love open borders and amnesty don't like Ted Cruz much either because he's been one of their strongest foes in the Senate. Back in 2013, when Donald Trump was calling for amnesty and Marco Rubio was pushing a bill that would have altered the demographics of our country in a way that would have permanently marginalized conservatives going forward, Ted Cruz was on the right side of the fight.
Listen to what Jeff Sessions, the staunchest opponent of amnesty and open borders in the Senate, had to say about the battle over the Gang-of-8 amnesty bill.
"In 2013 they spent a billion and a half dollars to promote this legislation, the political consultants, they had pollsters hired to spin the numbers, they had special interest groups, they met for months, the gang of eight, they were determined, it was a near on thing, it was a worse bill than the 2007 bill. It gave amnesty first...It was that close to being passed... and I think I can say this with integrity. Without the vigorous opposition of Ted Cruz, this bill likely would have passed."
Additionally, establishment Republicans have never loved Ted Cruz. That's because Cruz's willingness to fight the Democrats puts a spotlight on their cowardice, the strength of his connection with conservatives reveals how out of touch they are and his insistence that Republicans keep their campaign promises highlights how seldom they actually keep their word. The fact that John Boehner has lost his job and that so many people are blaming the GOP leadership in Congress for the seething anger of Republican voters this year reveals the biggest reason the establishment Republicans hate Cruz: They were wrong and he was right.
It's these same establishment types who have used their favorite argument against a candidate who's obviously preferable to the ones they want, "He can't win the general election."
That is just what they said when Pat Toomey took on Arlen Specter, Marco Rubio took on Charlie Crist and Rand Paul took on Trey Grayson. In every one of those races, the establishment was wrong and it's wrong about Cruz as well.
Cruz is the best debater in the field, he's the ONLY candidate who could electrify the vast majority of conservatives in the race, he'd be the first Hispanic President in American history, he has a well-organized, data-driven campaign, he's one of the best fund raisers running and he's already beating the much better known Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls.
That's important because it doesn't matter what you believe if you can't win a general election. However, as conservatives who have been burned by empty promises over and over again have also learned to their dismay, it doesn't matter if a candidate says all the right things if he's not willing to fight for them.
Ted Cruz ran on conservative issues like building a fence on our border when he was elected, he has lived up to his promises in the Senate and he has run a consistently conservative campaign. Cruz is also not temperamental and you don't ever have to wonder what he REALLY thinks about issues like abortion or health care. Perhaps even more importantly, Cruz has proven that he's a fighter who's not scared to go toe-to-toe with anybody from the Republican establishment to Obama, to the mainstream media.
Cruz's consistent conservatism mixed with his willingness to fight is why he's the ONLY CANDIDATE RUNNING who can absolutely be counted on to get rid of Obama's executive orders, kill Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood and build a fence on the border.
At the end of the day, none of us can control who gets elected. We can only do the best we can and let the chips fall where they may. So, I don't have any illusions about whether one more or less conservative columnist speaking out for Ted Cruz is going to make a big difference. However, what I will say is that Ted Cruz is the first grassroots-friendly conservative to be within striking distance of becoming the GOP nominee since Reagan. Opportunities like this don't come along very often and if conservatives let this one pass, we may never again have a chance to put a conservative champion like Cruz in the White House.
Trump trolls: “Hey gang there’s another Cruz thread we can go stink up while convincing no one!”
Been down this road a thousand times.
You need to read carefully The 1790 Act.
It deals with NATURALIZATION.
In the act, the phrase “natural born” is referring to the children born of folks who themselves have been Naturalized through this act.
It is the CHILDREN of these now naturalized “Citizens” who would now be considered “Natural Born”, as both parents would now be considered “Citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.
Ans your opinion is better than mine because... ????
There are two provisions. The first is about the residence of the father and the 2nd is about the acceptability to the state.
When I was born there were no provisions that had to be met by any law. I was an NBC.
See the difference between an NBC and one NOT meeting those provisions in 1790?
Just because you had a citizen parent that didn’t make you an NBC like I automatically was.
Had Barack Obama been born overseas, there is no way under these provisions of the 1790 law that he would have been an NBC. His dad was Kenyan British and had NEVER been pursuing residency. He’d always been a student. (Ignore the white issue from that time. It’s irrelevant to this point.)
So a child born to a us citizen overseas was not automatically a us citizen in 1790.
I’m not saying Cruz wouldn’t have made it in 1790 but his Cuban father giving up his us resident status in canada would have been a complicated legal issue.
“natural born citizen means a person born of citizen parents.”
Yikes!
Sorry, I missed the “s” on the end.
Dirty glasses.
We agree on NBC.
Mea culpa. mea culkpa. mea maxima culpa.
ping to #45
See #45
Answer: yes.
I guess Trump fans must swarm every.single.post with the name Cruz in the title.
“I’m not saying Cruz wouldn’t have made it in 1790 but his Cuban father giving up his us resident status in canada would have been a complicated legal issue.”
Cruz’s father was a Canadian citizen when he was born.
“It deals with NATURALIZATION.”
Correct. That is in its name. However, it also just happens to define, by way of allusion, just what is meant by “natural born”, a term used in the Constitution.
I’ve not seen dates on that, so I’m not willing to go there. By my dates, Cruz senior left New Orleans in 1969 to go to Canada. Cruz was born at the end of December in 1970. That is not enough time to become a Canadian citizen.
I just read that Cruz’s father became a Canadian citizen in 1973. He was a citizen of Cuba before that. To think he could bequeath American citizenship to Ted Cruz, in any manner, is laughable.
How long does it take to become a Canadian citizen? It is not instantaneous, so he had to apply just at the same time he entered Canada or thereabouts, and probably even before Ted was born.
Little known, odawg, is that many have not commented on the Vietnam war raging blistering hot in 1969 when Cruz senior left the US for CANADA, and he returned to the US in 1975 when the war was declared over. A coincidence?
“I want more politicians.” —John Hawkins
That’s the quandary
the term natural born is only used twice by the founders
In the Constitution about POTUS regs and in the 1790 act
It’s never been challenged because Cruz is the first example contrary to those two wordings
It is now being challenged so we’ll see at some point
The whole “Cruz’s parents were alcoholics” smells to high heaven. Raphael Sr had a well established & lucrative business in Canada, he and his wife purchased a home, therefore, proof of their legal permanent residence status and then one day, out of the cold, in an instant, the business is sold and Raphael Sr leaves Canada, however, not as a ‘legal resident’, but as a full fledged Canadian citizen.
I have lived with alcoholic family members around me all my life and this is NOT how an alcoholic behaves. Unless there is a family member who is able to step in and take control of finances such as my grandmother did, there would have been no business to sell. Nope, this all smells like bull$hit to me. One time Cruz Jr says BOTH his parents had drinking problems and then the next time he claims that only his father was the drunk. Which is it? I suspect neither, I suspect it is nothing but the same political bull$hit that brought us the current usurper in chief, ... follow the money!!! Sr had the SAME financial backers as Jr does today!!!
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Can you, besides Ted Cruz that is?
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.