Posted on 06/17/2016 7:38:06 AM PDT by marktwain
Senator Ted Cruz does a superb job of exposing Democrats using a terror attack to attack the Constitution. As is to be expected, the leftist media is attacking it as a “terrible” speech. Read or watch it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Mr. CRUZ.
Madam President, our Nation is at war. Five days ago, we saw a horrific terror attack in Orlando, FL. From September 11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to this attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. As the facts have unfolded, they now indicate that the Orlando terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS in the process of murdering 49 and wounding more than 50 at a nightclub.
All of our hearts go out to those who were murdered. To the families of those who were victims and who are grieving, we stand in solidarity, we lift them up in prayer at this horrific act of terrorism. But it is also a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, who will address the enemy we face, who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military on defeating ISIS and defeating radical Islamic terrorists.
In the wake of the attack, many of us predicted what would unfold, and it was, sadly, the same political tale we have seen over and over again. Many of us predicted that Democrats would, as a matter of rigid partisan ideology, refuse even to say the words “radical Islamic terrorist”; that they would suggest this attack was yet another isolated incident, one lone criminal, not connected to any global ideology, not connected
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Explain to me, again, why Ted Cruz is not the presumptive Republican nominee?
His run for President, if we take his claim that he was eligible at face value, then we must realize that the qualifications for Natural Born Citizen (A) that there is no requirement to be born in the United States, and (B) that it may be passed down by one citizen parent only. As a result, in this model, any child of a NBC is an NBC as well… which means if John Tyler (the first NBC President) had a son who moved to Europe and married, say, the Crown Princess of England then their heir would be eligible for the Presidency as well as being in line for King of England.
This is exactly the situation that the founders wanted to prevent by the natural born citizen clause:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.— John Jay, in a letter to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention (George Washington), dated 25-Jul-1787.
Maybe after Trump stops calling him “Lyin’ Ted”?
You have to admit it’s difficult to endorse someone who calls you a liar. That just human nature.
Why does he start by saying Madame president???
He's addressing the senator who is presiding over the chamber. That person is referred to as "president" as in presiding over the senate.
Cruz said that some hardcore Constitutional defenders insist that only Natural Born Citizens can begat NBCs. It was a blatant, stupid, obnoxious lie. Such a standard would mean that no one has ever been or ever will be a NBC. Defenders of the Constitution are not that moronic. Cruz was lying through his teeth.
Fortunately, his hoped-for political gain never materialized, so all he has to show for the effort is the shameless dishonesty he displayed when he made that idiotic, baseless claim.
Attorneys argue for their clients all the time. Overall, Cruz comes out ahead of 96 other Senators. Good enough for me.
This looks like another one of those ‘bring Ted back to life’ threads. It’s not going to happen, he’s dead, he committed suicide.
These conservative rating formulas are a gimmick—yet another DC Insider scam the Permanent Political Class plays on the voter class.
For example, suppose the ONLY way to stop a piece of disastrous liberal legislation is to NOT allow it out of committee. Our mighty conservative warriors align with the Dems and vote for cloture. Guess what—that vote doesn’t count against their conservative rating. Yet afterward the passage of the devastating legislation is a foregone conclusion. (Of course at that time the ‘conservative’ goes on the warpath against the bill, making a huge show of opposing it—safe in the knowledge that such opposition is doomed to fail. It’s all a ruse.)
Same with pro 2A ratings. Let’s say there are 96 gun-related votes of no particular 2A significance, but a senator votes pro-gun on all of them. Then there are four votes of abject life and death importance to the 2A. The senator votes anti-2A on all four. Guess what his overall pro-2A rating is? 96%. He’s a pro-gun champ!
It’s all a racket.
No, you are mistaken. The GOA takes committee votes into account. They are the best and most rigorous raters on Second Amendment support that exists.
GOA is HATED by the “political class.”
Because his father killed Kennedy.
Please provide a link that confirms the fact that cloture votes are counted.
Even if you’re right, my basic point stands. If a cloture vote is the ONLY way a truly and totally devastating bill can pass, then why would such a vote have equal weight with 96 meaningless votes?
To make the point, let’s say the cloture vote is the ONLY anti-2A vote against a senator. So his rating is 99% pro-2A.
Take a non-politician. Put him in a situation where, 99 times, he can, if he chooses, steal minor office products. I.e.: a few pencils or a pen or two. He passes on all opportunities.
Now give him one chance to successfully steal a Ferrari. He nabs the car.
The analysis would be that the guy is as honest as the day is long...by Congressional standards. Ninety-nine percent honest is about as good as it gets!
Still not buying. It’s all a scam.
I do not believe that GOA works on a strict arithmetic formula. They look at the big picture. They consider crucial votes. They rate politicians on how effectively they protect the Second Amendment.
I can’t find their rating methodology spelled out anywhere. It would be nice to have a link spelling out exactly how they derive their scores.
That’s fine,my point is that Cruz can explain his positions coherently,Trump makes your hair hurt,repeating bumper sticker phrases and going over how he won the primaries,he needs to get into specifics,He does better when reading off the teleprompter,get TED Cruz to right the damn speeches if he can’t be VP,otherwise people are going to get bored listening to the same bumper sticker lines,I already am and I want him to win
“It would be nice to have a link spelling out exactly how they derive their scores.”
I looked; I could not find a methodology directly spelled out either.
But I have watched GOA for a couple of decades, and they do not play games.
It may be that they use some subjective criteria, such as the importance of particular votes. Perhaps they have tie-breakers. They exist, in part, because the NRA played so many games for so long.
I sure don’t disagree with that. I am concerned we’re burning the clock and missing some opportunities too.
I believe you. You know a lot more about it than I do. I’d still like to see exactly how they derive their scores, but absent that I believe you absolutely know what you’re talking about. I appreciate the input.
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.