The Boston Globe and 2 local papers didn't give him a chance. He didn't win a single county in Massachussetts 4 days earlier. Did Cruz really win EVERY county in Maine?
The head of the Ted Cruz campaign has said Heidi is Ted's closest adviser. The FEC violations involve her current employer. No personal attacks, just a necessary professional evaluation of Heidi Cruz's role in the Cruz Crew.
As a self-described "constitutional expert" Canadian born Cruz could do us all a great service to stop illegal immigration by simply answer 4 teeny weeny questions...
Reagan was attacked by the Establishment, but people LIKED him. Cruz on the other hand is despised by mild mannered Huckabee and "sealed lips" George W. There is a reason. Here is an (almost) complete compendium of Cruz lies.
There is a lie being told that "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. That's True. What's Not True is that it is NOT settled by the Supreme Court. (It has)
In honor of @pmbasse, a descendant of one of the original 300 Texas settlers, I want to tell you WHY I LOVE TEXAS. As they say, I wasn't born here but I got here as soon as I could. And for me that was 3 times.
When you see who REALLY is running Ted's campaign, you realize how "inside" this pretend outsider is. The top CIA, Goldman Sachs executives are LITERALLY running his campaign.
The most rewarding and frustrating experience on Twitter has to be the concept of Follow Friday. I have a solution. See where PolitiJim gets his news, and twinteraction from.
Like many such articles in other places , it states emphatically that forcing a healthy man to be medically raped was "constitutional."
My response:
First - the original finding was vaccinating an individual, not a population. Courts have continued to use it (unchallenged) to continue to broaden the encroachment of government. But the original ruling entirely hinged on 3 elements. First that the compulsion (fine or imprisonment) was "reasonable" for general health. Second that vaccinations would protect the greater population. And third, that the legislating body had done exhaustive research to conclude that opposing theories were investigated and dismissed.
The #1 contributor of congress are pharmaceutical companies that make an average 440% return on vaccine investments since the 1986 Vaccine Act literally removes ALL LIABILITY from them. We've already cataloged Hillary Clinton giving away 20% of the US's strategic uranium supply for hundreds of millions back to the Clinton Foundation and NO prosecution or investigation by her party which ran the DOJ. ARE WE SURE CONGRESS HAS ORIGINALLY VETTED ALL SCIENCE? (And why do we think they are equipped to make a medical judgement in the first place.) ARE WE SURE CONGRESS ISN'T BEING SOLD to the highest bidder? Pharmaceutical companies also make up 70% of the revenue of mainstream media news budgets. I wonder why Hydroxycholorquine and azithromicin - which has been in the marketplace for 35+ years with little complication and costs less than $2 a dose is lambasted on ABCNNBCBS (with 4 clinical studies showing a 96% or better success rate) but Gilead's Remdesivir which costs 1,000 a dose has 1 public study in China showing it has a higher rate of death but every news organization is giving it glowing reviews before results of the NIH study is even released?)
The presumption that vaccines are "a miracle" as Bill Gates says is interesting because not only was US measles mortality PRIOR to the MMR vaccine was only 2 in 1 million (now it is 2 in 1,000), the CDC was forced to admit in court last month that they have ZERO studies to make their claim on their website saying autism is NOT caused by this vaccine or the combination of any of the 48 to 63 vaccinations now reccomended by the CDC. (Which actually makes money from many of those patents by the way.)
DOES it make a population safer?
It should first be noted that Jenner actually tested cowpox on his son and a neighbor boy who both developed extreme weakened immune systems. Both died before they were 21 of tuberculosis. It is a published medical truth still, that smallpox vaccines increases the risk of tuberculosis dramatically.
England made smallpox vaccination mandatory in 1853 with fines and imprisonments enacted by 1857. According to official records of the REGISTER GENERAL OF ENGLAND, between 1857- 1859 there were over fourteen thousand (14,000+) deaths from smallpox. From 1863-1865 there were over 20,000 deaths from smallpox. Then between 1870-1872 there were over 45,000 deaths from smallpox. The vaccine literally created massive outbreaks and pandemics.
Massachusetts mandated the smallpox vaccine in 1855 and the same thing happened. There were epidemics in 1859, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1867 and an enormous outbreak in 1872-73. Similar outbreaks suddenly happened wherever vaccinations were mandated in Germany, Japan, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Italy, Austria, and Holland.
Dr. Suzanne Humphries documents this in her book DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS, especially noting the town of Lester, England.
They had a 95% infant vaccination rate but had some of the worst outbreaks in all of England. The population demonstrated with 80,000 attendees and decided they would stop vaccinating - instead using quarantine of the infected with disinfectant of their homes. Lester's death rate AND outbreak rates PLUMMETED and ended up having the lowest death rate and outbreak rate of any town in their region of England.
FASCINATING! Medical schools don't teach current discoveries of germ theory. Exosomes look like viruses but in truth are 'bio-programming' packets sent to be shared among living things. If corrupted you get things like coronavirus that likely aren't viruses at all. Watch the video.
Some of this sounds like the stuff of science fiction. But I've carefully documented the source of patents, US government studies and corporate documentation so you can verify this for yourself.
However Fauci continues to acknowledge the need for some non-existent, non-tested, mandatory vaccine Bill Gates is pushing including an implanted 'digital certificate' proving you've had a vaccination.
Mass media and Soros funded entities like Snoopes are already pushing disinformation that Gates isn't talking about an implanted chip. (In the interview cited he leaves it at 'digital certificate' without elaborating.) But Gates is the funder of a project called ID2020 that SPECIFICALLY addresses how to implant 'digital certificates' to track people's medical records.
This technique can be used to administer DNA vaccines, which inject foreign DNA into a host’s cells that changes the host’s DNA. This means if you take a DNA vaccine, you are allowing your DNA to be changed.
I'm sure it's only a coincidence that in LESS THAN 2 WEEKS from the World Health Organization declaring that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission (Jan 14), Inovio had partnered with China and had already begun PRE-CLINICAL TRIALS for a DNA based vaccine.
Nanobot implementation in humans is already widely used. However, as a "vaccine manufacturer" they no longer have ANY liability due to the 1986 Vaccine Act. So pharmaceutical companies that have to go through 6-10 years of clinical trials for normal pharmaceuticals - and can be held liable for their injuries - have literally ZERO liability when they produce a vaccine. The return on investment for vaccine development is nearly 4400%.
Admittedly, the rest is conjecture. However, this video describes what is ALREADY public in using nanodisc vaccine methods to control mice biological behavior.
Bill Gates has been very public about his support for Planned Parenthood and population DEPOPULATION. He even claimed in a TED Talk that with vaccines - we could reduce the population by 10% to 15%. (He also claims we should reduce CO2 to zero which of course would mean all plant matter on earth would die. But sure, he's a genius.)
Don't for a minute think it's NOT a coincidence that both Obama and Geroge W give their first speeches in the same 24 hour news cycle when Trump announces release of the JFK files. What the CIA driven elite fear in Donald Trump is that he will suddenly start revealing ALL the dirty laundry from 9/11 to the ineligibility of McCain, Obama and Barack's myraid of unconstitutional moves.
Don't forget, the media collectively lost it's breath, then it's sh*t when Trump threatened Jed! Bush's complicity in 9/11 cover ups, let alone the Obama forged document scandals or the Clinton Foundation / State Department Ponzi scheme.
If the JFK files show CIA subterfuge on the American people and it has Weinstein story-like legs, I'm guessing you will see incessant insanity from every elite and media orifice realizing their curtain of Oz is about to come down.
Most have no clue of Obama's mother/grandparents tie to the CIA, Bush 41's deep CIA ties and assassination orders, or - of course - the enormous coordinated effort taken to stage the 9/11 attack by the US government.
The Bushes rehabilitated Impeached, Disbarred Bill Clinton, Obama not only didn't pursue the "Bush Crimes" he promised his base, he expanded them. And Trump is just crazy enough to blow the lid on it all.
Obama was CIA
W Accidentally Admits Explosives Were Used at World Trade Center on 9/11
Leading Explosive Experts Explains Blatant Evidence 9/11 Was Attack on Americans by American Government - Bush 41 Perjured Himself in 1970 CIA Hearings - Was Always CIA
... it's all staged to manipulate. JFK to 9/11 - it's all bullshit government control.
There are some rather uninformed posts flying around suggesting Newt Gingrich is some kind of one world government elitist. Most of this is recycled disinformation from the Mitt Romney forces of '12 or deceptive cherry picked exceptions of a very distinguished conservative crusader. The same can be done with ANY politician including Reagan who dramatically expanded abortion just 6 years before running for President, who implemented broad illegal alien amnesty as POTUS and who spoke highly of his liberal friends like Tip O'Neill.
Simply put, there may not be another personal alive who has done more to advance freedom and conservative values.
He was among the first vocal and enthusiastic supporters of the TEA party appearing with Sean Hannity at the FIRST Tea Party event on 4/15/2009.
He started a campaign to not only defend gun ownership as a Constitutional right, but to make it a WORLDWIDE human right.
As House Speaker, with a Democrat President, Gingrich initiated the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, we cut taxes and lowered unemployment to under 5 percent. (Incidentally we have NOT had a balanced budget since.)
Don't lose sight of that last point. At the bottom I list and link to more specifics, but the Democrats had controlled Congress for FORTY YEARS before Newt Gingrich engineered the Contract with America. Not only that, America went from a 20% approval to a 60% approval of Congress following Gingrich's leadership.
Yes, as Al Gore's INCONVENIENT TRUTH spread the false evangelism of Global Warming, Gingrich openly said we needed to take it seriously and if, true, would need to consider some form of research and legislation to stop carbon pollution. Just like many other scientists like Rush Limbaugh's buddy Roy Spencer did. But less than 2 years later - even before the Climategate email scandal of faked data became apparent, Gingrich had educated enough to vigorously fight against Cap and Trade in Hearings before Congress.
Yes, the academic professor (who began in environmental studies, graduated in history and obtained a Masters and Doctorate in European history) opens himself up to - sometimes strange - people and ideas. His enthusiastic admiration for the Toffler's (The Third Wave) are often bandied about as some kind of new world order inspiration despite his continuing movies, books and speeches on Reagan, Washington and Christianity in American Government. And lest you forget, they ended up being prescient about many aspects of technology and social interaction. But if you are truly worried, go no further than Alvin Toffler himself who said that he and Newt agreed on very little.
You want to know the WORST decisions/opinions of Newt Gingrich over his long career? Here you go: The Drinking Scale of Gingrich Big Government Gaffes. Enjoy. And then help set the record straight by idiots that have tried to smear this man for the past 8 years.
Here is a quick list of links to other Newt insights:
Links for: Michael Reagan AND Nancy Reagan believed Newt Gingrich was the steward of the Reagan movement and legacy. The most conservative architects of the Reagan administration endorsed Newt Gingrich in 2012.
(AMAZING MUST WATCH) Video archives/transcripts of Gingrich speeches BEFORE he became Speaker of the House including story of his daughter on how much he talked about his love for America as she was growing up. This post gives an insight into the amazing understanding of how the political SYSTEM needed to be changed, to actually move the country to the right - including how to deal with the liberal press.
Newt Gingrich as GA Congressman and Speaker of the House:
33 years as Congressman including 4 as Speaker of the House
Lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 90% (most recent year was for 1998 at 100%)* **
He had a Democrat controlled Congress up until 1994, a Democrat President
Helped
Reagan pass biggest tax cut in 50 years as Minority Whip, called out
George Bush on breaking his promise and led (as a legislator) a Democrat
President to do the same.
Art Laffer confirms Gingrich helped on a team that designed “Supply Side Economics.”
Supported/Championed policies that created 11 Million jobs.
National Taxpayers Union’s Annual Scorecard on reduced spending and taxes gave Gingrich an “A”, for his last four years in office, ranking him #1, #4, #2 and #11 and as one of the most conservative members in Congress.
Led
a Balanced Budget initiative with a Democrat President. He did this AS A
SPEAKER, not an Executive Branch Leader and not in control of the
Senate or Executive Branch. He balanced the budget 4 times creating the
first SURPLUS in decades.
$400 billion in debt was paid
off during time as Speaker, although Gingrich agreed with Reagan on deal
that ended up running deficits until 1988.
Fought and defeated HillaryCare both in strategy, as well as political and legislative maneuvering.
On third try got a Democratic President and Senate to initiate Welfare Reform that put 60% of recipients to work.
Gingrich’s pro-life voting record is 98.6%, 70 out of 71 votes.
Brought two partial birth abortion bills to Clinton that served as the model for what was passed under George W. Bush.
He
helped Reagan’s initiative to eliminate 12 of 94 programs and cut
budgets of many others like the SBA more than 50%. (Life Lesson: SBA
grew afterward to over 10X it’s original budget. If you don’t eliminate a
it, it will always grow bigger.)
He identified, recruited,
campaigned for and helped organize the biggest minority opposition
swing in US modern history getting 367 Congressional candidates to sign
the Contract With America. This resulted in a NET GOP pickup of 52 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate and 11 Governorships. GOPAC founder Pete DuPont and Paul Weyrich both didn’t believe it could be done.
Multiple conservatives congressmen got their political start including:
Jon Kyl Mike DeWine Jim Inhofe Fred Thompson Bill Frist Rick Santorum
Contract With America - (1995 Description): “…represented the culmination of 30 years of creative conservative thinking dealing with the basic social and economic problems of modern America. The ideas provided the background for the widest range of legislative initiatives, certainly since the 1930s, and possibly at any time in American political history.”
The
ten items in the Contract were all acted upon in the first 100 days of
the new Congress, which is what the signatories had pledged. Nine of the
ten items in the Contract passed the House: Only the constitutional
amendment on term limits (which required a two-thirds vote) was
defeated. Out of a total of 302 roll call votes on issues related to the
Contract With America, the conservatives prevailed on 299 of them. A
balanced budget amendment passed in the House by a 300-123 margin but
was subsequently defeated as it fell one vote short of the two-thirds
needed for passage in the U.S. Senate. The overall margin by which the
items in the Contract were passed averaged about 70 percent despite the
fact that the Republicans only held a 12-seat margin over the Democrats
(52-48 percent, the smallest House majority margin in 40 years). Given
the notorious lack of party discipline in the American Congress, the
passage by a large majority of nearly all of the items in the Contract
was a remarkable achievement.
I can’t adequately cover all 10 initiatives and their profundity but they include:
Congressional Reform including Congress being subject to the law they pass
Balanced Budget with Line Item Veto (failed Senate, passed Veto but declared unconstitutional)
Anti-crime package (truth in sentencing, more law enforcement help)
Personal Responsibility (ultimately became Welfare Reform)
Tax Package Including Child Tax Credit, Elimination of Marriage Penalty, Savings Account, Middle Class Tax Relief
Disallow US Troops from serving under foreign authorites like the UN
Frivolous Litigation vetoed by Clinton but tort reform override veto.
Job
Creation act included capital-gains cuts and indexation, neutral cost
recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.
Other
sections of the Contract include a proposed Family Reinforcement Act
(tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in
their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and elderly
dependent care tax credit) and the Senior Citizens Fairness Act (raise
the Social Security earnings limit, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social
Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care
insurance).
The only bill that failed was Term Limits.
He
is the longest-serving teacher of the Joint War Fighting course for
Major Generals at Air University and taught officers from all five
services as an honorary Distinguished Visiting Scholar and Professor at
the National Defense University.
His “Liberal” Legislation?
Voted for Department of Education with Carter in first term.
Supported Reagan in Simpson-Mazzoli Amnesty Bill
Voted to raise taxes twice with Reagan.
Would vote for earmarks in exchange for conservative legislative votes.
When
Newt became Speaker in 1995 congressional approval was about 20%. When
he resigned the Speakership four years later, it was about 60%. (Now it is at 11%). ______________________________________________________________________
NEWT GINGRICH RECORD: CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL?
Unlike Obama, Cain, (and to some extent Bachmann), there is no lack of
speeches, books - and most importantly – votes to find out who Newt
is. The Club for Growth has an exhaustive PDF white paper on Newt and there are many other conservative sources including the American Conservative Union (Rating 90%). So how do people like Beck make the jump that a man William F. Buckley called, “profoundly committed free trader,” progressive and worse? Because it’s not 100%
conservative. Gingrich admitted to CBN recently that he regretted his
vote for the Department of Education and evolved from a Rockefeller
Republican (liberal republican) into a conservative. Who hasn’t,
right? Except that many like Reagan didn’t have a contiguous public
voting record during the change. So what were these terrible
“Progressive” votes of his:
Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush "Read My Lips" tax hike in 1990.
Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the "Contract for America" effort that he led) in 1995
Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995. Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996
I’m
sure Beck would claim this was ALL a setup to seduce non-suspecting
patriots into a hypnotic state until he could REALLY get his hands on
power! AH HA! Only one problem. He barely survived a battle
against DeLay and Boehner (who couldn’t make an argument for crony
capitalism and progressive against these two right?), and STEPPED DOWN
from his Speakership and Congressional seat after winning election. AND
FINALLY we have an important point – apart from the insane and
uninformed ravings of those on our side. Gingrich did not feel that
pressing for hardcore conservative positions with a Democrat President
would serve our purpose. Especially after they had successfully enacted
welfare reform and balanced budgets by working WITH Democrats than
against them. And this is a good argument. Is it better to remain in power and do SOME good, or stand on principle and lose all power to do any good?
ACU’s Keene calls Gingrich a partisan but NOT a conservative although
he admits his speakership was basically conservative. (Figure that one
out.) But if he is not a conservative, why did he create and fulfill
the VERY conservative CONTRACT WITH AMERICA? And why did those who
argued AGAINST Gingrich’s leadership – end up running the franchise into
the ground that gave us Pelosi and Reed? Was the prescription drug and
Head Start programs under Bush better under the anti-Newt forces? I
think like the Roosevelt and the Clinton years the “TIMES” will make
Gingrich. We would like to think of our leaders as the William
Wilberforce's of history who have one true guiding NORTH and would
rather lose the argument for decades until the ship aligns to their
view. Gingrich instead seems fine going from NORTHWEST to NORTHEAST to
stay on the ship. His impact AS A LEADER on the LAST MAJOR REPUBLICAN
victory (Balanced Budgets, Welfare Reform) seem to me to not only make
Beck’s argument silly about being a progressive – but also diminish the
REAL records of Santorum and Bachmann. It is one thing to vote on a
measure – or even sponsor a bill. it is quite another to motivate
dozens of other leaders to a cause and actually WIN a battle or a war.
This Gingrich did.
I have had many interactions with Cruz supporters continuing to herald his qualifications as a "Constitutional Conservative." I debate that on the merits of his record. I am not suggesting that Ted Cruz is Harry Reid. But he is not Antonin Scalia either. It is important to put outisde the talking points, the PR and campaign ads and look at the facts:
Article One
Cruz was very good bringing attention to the problems of ObamaCare. But since he has been silent on it's unconstitutional passing. At one tim ehe was willing to shut down government. But after giving the Republican Establishment a donatoin of $240,000 from his PAC and taking a position as joint Chairman of the NRSC, he complains about the law, but brings no attention to the subversion of the process. Few recall how Harry Reid changed Senate rules to bypass the Scott Brown election that kept the Democrats from obtaining the 60 votes needed to pass ObamaCare outright. They changed the rules to only require a simple majority, and we've never heard a filibuster or lawsuit from Cruz since. Pelosi's unconstitutional adoption of a Senate military housing bill to make a 'revenue' ObamaCare bill is in violation of the Constitution which clearly defines that revenue bills must originate in the House. Reid and company used political procedures to override both the law and intent of the Constitution. Cruz has used similar tactics including in the passing of ObamaTrade.
Ted Cruz authored the Senate bill for ObamaTrade (or TPP/TPA). He took to the airwaves with Rand Paul to speak vigorously for it. What does the Trans-Pacific Trade treaty do? It subverts the US Constitution by placing the authority of US interests and companies under the power of the World Bank and foreign countries that represent over 40% of the world GDP. Jeff Sessions said at the time:
....companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations,
rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local —
before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations...
critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned
deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States
and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests
than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.12
And it's far worse. Foreign investors could sue the Federal, State, County and City entities for any US investment they made that went bad - even if it had nothing to do with those government entities involved.
One foreign government could bankrupt a state under the jurisdiction of foreign powers. The Huffington Post restated one provision this way:
"(International companies and investors) can collect not just for lost property
or seized assets; they can collect if laws or regulations interfere
with these giant companies' ability to collect what they claim are
"expected future profits."16
"To require the approval of Congress before
additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”…
Look up the vote yourself.
In other words, Senator Cruz did not want congress to be consulted before other countries, including China, could join TPP and put us directly under international law and foreign powers.
If that isn't bad enough, it also would flood the United States with foreign workers, and remove MANY protections already in law. Via Breitbart:
Even if the migrant foreign workers (coming from foreign companies and governments as part of the TPP allowance) are paid American wage-levels, the huge influx of foreign workers will flood the U.S. market and
drive down wages paid to American technicians and professionals. “It is
pure supply-and-demand,” she said. For example, “if you increase the
supply of legal services, you increase the number of law firms, you
reduce the wages of [American] lawyers...”
On this measure, the TPP is written so foreign powers could literally force us to rewrite our immigration laws. Forget Gang of Eight. Any Constitutional - well, almost any Constitutional scholar, can see that this subverts the entire intent of Article I powers.
Ted Cruz claimed he would "talk until he couldn't stand" at the ObamaCare filibuster although according to Harry Reid's Communication Director, not only would Cruz have to abandon the floor for a per-scheduled vote, Cruz had negotiated the PR ploy with Reid in the first place. Most conservatives like myself are happy for the attention it brought,
but it shows that Cruz is not the "purist" he sells himself to be. In fact the very filibuster itself is believed to be unconstitutional. It most certainly is abused and Cruz was part of that. But on aspects of Iran, the ObamaCare funding budget and other GOP establishment rubber stamps for Obama, Cruz no longer attempts the use of this tool he said was so critical to our Constitution.
Article Two and Three
Ted Cruz's website boldly lies "NO CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR BELIEVES CRUZ TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENT."
However scholarship papers and Notable Officials to the contrary are legion including Ted Cruz's own Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe. A few include:
Catholic Law University Review PDF (Also explains why other scholars get it wrong)
(Layman Washington Post article by same Delaware Law School professor/historian)
The Supreme Court Ruling in Wong vs Ark says this:
"Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired *180
by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But
citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the
circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a
citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person
born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a
citizen by being naturalized,
Being "naturalized" is different from being a native citizen.
Despite this Constitutional scholar Ted Cruz told CNN that the entire issue over whether he is eligible or not is "not important. He went on to claim that "The very first Congress defined citizens born abroad as natural born citizens." As shown at the list link above, historian and Founding Father Dave Ramsey, who literally wrote the book "Citizenship" in 1789 SPECIFICALLY outlines that it is to be defined as a child born on US soilto TWO parents who are United States citizens. The Founders spent quite a bit of effort on this provision wanting protections that a President would have loyalty to our country from the aspects of birth and the upbringing. A "native Texan" is one who was born in Texas. If you came when you were 5, you are not a native. Throughout the Founder's writings they use "native" to be equal to born on US soil. In the 1875 Supreme Court decision Minor vs Happersett the court specifically mentions that the definition of "natural born citizen" is not in the Constitution but
"it was never doubted that all children born in a
country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their
birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners"
However, Cruz and his apologists often cite the Immigration Act of 1790 labeling foreign born children of US parents "as" natural born citizens. Not only doesn't it say "are natural born citizens," but the Act was completely repealed in 1795 and the language replacing it removed the "natural born" association altogether. We have the House Committee notes (link above) that explains one reason the Act was repealed and replaced, rather than amended it, was in part due to the potential confusion of future generations to unconstitutionally apply the poorly worded language. As a "Constitutional scholar" shouldn't Cruz know this? Another Senator does.
Current
Hawaiian US Senator Mazie Hirono was born to a US citizen mother and a
foreign father in a foreign land just like Rafael Ted Cruz. Her mother brought her to the US when
she was seven years old. She defines herself as an immigrant is a "naturalized citizen" according to her biography.
Is Ted Cruz a US Citizen and Eligible to be a US Senator?
What makes the Constitutional questions far worse is the lack of evidence that Ted Cruz or his parents filed the necessary paperwork to confirm his citizenship - much less his NATIVE or Natural Born Citizenship. As Governor LePage of Maine has stated, his girls were born in Canada, and the US still required documentation for them to retain their American citizenship and legally enter the United States as such when LePage and his wife returned to the United States. To this day, Cruz has only released his Canadian birth certificate. By his own admission he was a Canadian citizen until approximately 18 months ago, and yet his immigration records from 1974, his passport application from 1986 and his passport records have been sealed together with his college records. On what basis could he Constitutionally run for United States Senate without having been a US citizen for 9 years?
This lack of documentation then leads to speculation on what basis did his family come to the United States. Although unverified, most accept that Cruz's mother was likely a US citizen. However Rafael Cruz Sr, took Canadian citizenship in 1973 before Ted was born. He did not become a US citizen until 2005. On what legal basis did he stay in the United States? Was he on a renewable visa during that time? We don't know. Similarly, without a Consular Report of Birth Abroad filed on Ted's behalf by his mother at a US embassy, there is a strong case that Ted Cruz is possibly not even a US citizen. Others who have been in the same situation as Ted Cruz, have disclosed their immigration documents and process. At least one legal group believes the documentation suggests he is an "undocumented alien."
So how can a "Constitutional scholar" determine the laws of citizenship of other legal and illegal immigrants when he has not fully disclosed the proper documentation for his own immigration?
The other Article II issue where Ted Cruz has a clear track record, is that of the appointment by the President for nominees to the Supreme Court. It was Ted Cruz who recruited, vetted and championed the appointment of John Roberts under George Bush 43. Roberts, was the deciding vote
in a 2012 Supreme Court case that upheld the Affordable Care Act’s
individual mandate, practically ending the debate about the
constitutionality of Obamacare. Again, Ted Cruz lied in the debates as evidenced by the emails he wrote in 2005 that he had nothing to do with Robert's nomination. Even without the first hand testimony of Jeb Bush's discussion with his brother, it's clear Cruz worked diligently on making sure Roberts was nominated. Among Ted's many emails in support of Roberts appointment he wrote:
“one of the very best advocates ever,” who
exemplified “how to try to carry out our craft with the highest level of
skill and integrity.”
In an op-ed for the National Review he wrote:
“As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him,”
It would be unfair to blame Cruz for the judicial decisions of Roberts when the exalted Ronald Reagan had less than conservative results with Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Conner. But Cruz must also accept responsibility when he claims he would be better than other candidates in selecting Supreme Court nominees when we see the results of specific efforts he made in a real life situation.
Article Four
US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:“The
United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”
James Madison:
“When we are
considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of
naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to
guard against abuses … aliens might acquire the right of citizenship,
and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws
intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and
inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of
citizens…”
When Scott Walker announced his campaign for President, he quickly stunned his conservative followers by saying he was open to amnesty for illegal aliens. The Cruz campaign quickly floated the notion that Ted Cruz was open to some legal status for illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigration like Numbers USA and the National Immigration Council have pointed out how evasive Cruz has been on immigration. His vigorous arguments against Obama's Executive Amnesty were quickly diluted by his five amendments to the Gang of Eight bill which he testified (below) was trying to improve it to get it passed. Then, as his campaign began, he tried to spin the notion that these efforts were a "poisoned pill" to get it defeated. Watch below at how sincere he is attempting to convince his audiences of both sides at different times.
Few realize the insidious Muslim invasion underway and has been expanded by the Obama administration. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees have been surreptitiously planted in small towns overrunning social services and destroying the culture and the economic well being of US communities that have existed over a hundred years. It seems their placement is calculated to be in areas so remote from large media venues to go unnoticed. One woman in Maine who saw this attempt by the Federal Government has become the intellectual leader of the American movement to stop this.
Through her years of research, Corcoran found that Muslim
immigration is a form of jihad through colonization called hijra, which
she reports dates back to the time of Mohammad. According to Corcoran,
the Muslim Brotherhood pursues the hijra strategy.
Corcoran’s sources detail that the migration is actually a religious obligation, in which Muslims are required to spread Islam.
“If you don’t help counter the hijra, we are in my opinion, doomed,” warned Corcoran.
She notes Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, who said Europe
wouldn’t be conquered by guns and swords, but instead by Muslim
immigration.
Given the words of James Madison describing the intent of our Constitution toward illegals, Ted Cruz's positions on refugees are worth noting in the video below:
Breitbart, Heritage and other conservative publications have spelled out the Constitutional violation to which Senator Cruz seems oblivious. One instance from Breitbart:
The constitutional argument is that the federal government, without the permission of these 12 Wilson-Fish states, has “commandeered”
state funds by placing refugees in their states, thereby obligating
states to pay Medicaid expenses for the refugees, in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
In effect, the federal government is imposing an unfunded federal
mandate by regulatory fiat, rather than statutory authority, on these 12
“Wilson-Fish alternative program” states.
Obama has issued 680,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim countries. Ted Cruz authored a bill to DOUBLE THAT NUMBER. In addition to destroying even more US jobs, it seems that Cruz is facilitating the destruction of America through hijad of humanitarian and legal means. It seems hard to believe that it is intentional. But he can only either be a dupe of the invasion, a politician who will change his views to whatever his political purposes need (as Carly Fiorina has said), or complicit. Listen to Jeff Session' Senior Policy Adviser talk about his experiences with Ted Cruz in 2013 during the Immigration battle. Personal knowledge of what Cruz did to subvert conservative values.
Article Six
...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Contrary to the Cruz campaign's assertion, the Founders did not institute a litmus test for how "religious" someone is or what precise religion that might be.
Amendment I
Cruz has not rebuked
supporters who have tried to silence opponents through a "blacklist"
that would go so far as to stop journalists critical of Ted Cruz from gaining
employment. This is Soviet-style tactics, and although not a government activity, against the spirit of our country and the First Amendment. Cruz isn't proposing a law, but considering the coercion by Cruz supporters from StandByMichelle to Amanda Carpenter without any disavowing from him, one can not assume our liberties will be any safer under his administration should he be elected. He certainly has not jumped to defend the Constitutional rights of Trump to assemble in private venues without obstruction.
Amendment IV
It has been widely reported that Ted Cruz has the second worst attendance in the Senate (excluding Harry Reid who had health issues.) His absences exceed the combined total of Feinstein, Boxer and comedian Al Franken. What is not reported is that he has the worst attendance record of any Senator of the Armed Services Committee, which is well below 50%. He also has voted "no" against the Defense bill appropriations for three years in a row, which includes pay raises for the military and veteran housing needs. His objection is that a provision against US citizens from being detained abroad is missing. He has not been able to lead his fellow Senators to include this in any of the three years bills. His justification against REAL needs of the military is to vote "no" three times in a row against what IS in the bill and instead votes "no" for what isn't in it. He had no problem however voting "Yes" to giving Iran - who has declared war against the United States - real nuclear and economic power despite the fact Obama won't call them a terrorist supporting country. This seems to be an inconsistent application of his principles and hurts the very military he claims he supports.
Amendment VIII
David Brooks, reported on a case ofMichael Wayne Haley who was arrested after stealing a
calculator from Walmart. The maximum sentence allowable was two years
but a court error had sentenced him to 16 years. Ted Cruz had the
ability and authority to let Haley go for "time served" but instead,
Cruz used the case to build his career by arguing an obscure point of
law before the Supreme Court. Ted Cruz made Haley stay in jail the full
16 years for stealing a $1 calculator. Brooks writes:
The case reveals something interesting about Cruz’s character. Ted Cruz
is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa.
But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of
what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility,
mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz’s behavior in the Haley case is almost
the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of
the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as
well as fairness and mercy.
It is true that the Supreme Court found in favor of Ted Cruz's argument on behalf of the State of Texas. The Supreme Court ruling by itself does not justify it as it also found for the right to kill unborn children and call a coercive government mandate to buy health insurance a "tax.". For a country founded in the footsteps of John Adams, who helped a British soldier be acquitted during the revolution, it certainly is not the spirit - if not the letter of the law.
Ted Cruz believes that Americans have the right to buy a gun, but not to read a food label informing them of toxic dangers.
Apparently GMOs are far more dangerous than guns in the mind of Ted
Cruz, because GMOs must be hidden from the public even as guns are
readily accessible.
The FDA finally agreed to start testing food for GMO's long after 38 other countries have banned them. MIT, Purdue and hundreds of other universities have conclusive studies showing correlative, if not causal implications of over 22 diseases from GMO's and Monsanto's Round Up modifications. Ted Cruz calls these scientists and advocates "anti-science zealots." Ted's vote for Monsanto (who spent enormous amounts of lobbying dollars and efforts) was actually a issue of state's rights. As Natural News stated:
The only way to get GMOs labeled is to get it done state by state, and
these 71 U.S. Senators have now thrown down the gauntlet, stating they
believe states have no right to mandate GMO labeling at the local level!
Keep
that in mind the next time Rand Paul or Ted Cruz talks about "liberty
and justice" Where was their justice on the issue of GMO labeling? How
does keeping people in the dark on what they're eating create a more
free society?
For God's sake, what does it take to get somebody
in Washington D.C. to consistently and unswervingly vote on the side of
liberty and freedom every single time?
Amendment VIV
One of the other adjectives Cruz and his supporters attempt to use to define him is "consistent." Below you can see that Ted Cruz went from saying "there is no need to fight" birthright citizenship from the Fourteenth Amendment, and then he follows a few years later saying it should end.
Forget for a moment the conflict of interest which Ted Cruz has as an undocumented (see above) immigrant himself. It was only after Trump began to get backing from the conservative press to end "anchor babies"(including the National Review which has devoted two entire issues to stopping Trump) that Cruz changed his tune. This is hardly the sign of a "consistent" Constitutional view.
Ann Coulter explains the crazy argument Cruz is making in his first position statement:
"...how could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that
granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in
our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I
really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed
with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids
citizens.
Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where
guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be
important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to
be a true scenario. Any scenario!
You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the
country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!
Damn straight they should!
We’ve got to codify that.
YOU MEAN IT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?
No, it isn’t, but that amendment will pass like wildfire!
It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. (1) I didn’t; (2) WHY WOULD I DO THAT?
“Luckily,” as FNC’s Shannon Bream put it Monday night, Fox had an
“expert” to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior
judicial analyst.
Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War
— and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th
Amendment was to — I quote — “make certain that the former slaves and
the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter
what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”
Huh.
In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John
Elk, who — as you may have surmised by his name — was an Indian, had to
go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because
he was born in the United States.
He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.
So Ted Cruz says that he has looked at "all the arguments" and missed the Supreme Court ruling in 1884?
Amendment XVI
In typical Ted Cruz fashion, he has proposed a VAT tax which is branded as a "Fair Tax." Forbes was one of the first to call this out. The difference is that a "fair tax" is transparent to the end buyer collecting the tax from the final seller of the transaction. The VAT tax buries taxes at every level of the wholesale transaction so the end consumer truly isn't aware of the "pre-tax" value of the purchase. Why is that important? As explained by Dan Mitchell of CATO, the VAT tax has accomplished two insidious things everywhere it's been introduced. It dramatically expands government spending because of the new taxing authority across 'wholesale' businesses that currently do not collect tax. And it dramatically increases the power, size and authority of the revenue department. It also appears to ultimately RAISE income taxes in the countries where it is adopted as well. The trade-off pushed by most economists in favor of it, is to replace the 16th Amendment with a VAT tax. And it would terrible.
A VAT tax seems to be prohibited and unconstitutional by Article 1. Therefore Cruz is either proposing an unconstitutional tax as the basis of his economic policy, or just as dangerous, a Constitutional convention or Amendment process. The convention is dangerous because it can become a behind-closed-doors bartering system for the politicians to fill an Amendment with "pork" in exchange for their support. The ratification by the individual states narrows the issue to the proposed language in an up or down vote - but can take years to enact. And the benefits of initially reducing taxes in the economy are pushed out until it is passed, ratified and put into effect. Our economy can't wait that long. And our country would never be able to repeal it once it is in place.
This recount does not take into account the many conservative actions and stances to which Cruz should be duly credited. He did defend the Second Amendment for the State of Texas. He did defend religious liberty with the Ten Commandment battle (again in Texas). He proposed voter registration requirements in the Senate and brought great awareness to the ObamaCare battle.
But there are many mixed successes as well. He protected US sovereignty as Solicitor General of Texas in one case where Mexico wanted jurisdiction over two killers caught in the United States. However, his willingness to strip US authority in every foreign transaction through his ObamaTrade bill, he nullifies his right to claim "defense of US sovereignty" to qualify his constitutional credibility. The same is true with other accomplishments such as introducing the State Marriage Defense Act bill in an attempt to uphold the Constitutional authority of each state to define marriage. When given the chance to defend it as Solicitor General he refused to fight against gay marriage when requested to do so by the Mayor of Houston. That is not consistent.
Cruz is not a liberal. But on the merits, There is no objective measure that he wins a title of a consistent Constitutional conservative.
G
M
T
Text-to-speech function is limited to 100 characters
