When Cruz Was Still Canadian Donald Trump Was Tough on Immigration – A Historic Review…

cruz canadianThe Junior Canadian Senator is actually trying to re-write history and claim he is strong on immigration issues.

“I like Donald Trump, I respect him personally, and in this campaign he’s talked a lot about illegal immigration and amnesty,” Cruz told the crowd. Going on to detail the 2013 immigration reform battle in Congress — legislation he opposed — Cruz continued, “We were on the verge of losing this fight, and 12 million people here illegally would be granted amnesty. And yet when that fight was being fought, Donald was nowhere to be found.” (link)

An incredulous claim coming from a Senator who took office a mere two years ago, while still holding Canadian citizenship, and who has failed to win a single battle on any legislation, including immigration.

The Senate Gang of Eight “amnesty” bill passed during Senator Cruz’s first year, 2013. (Cruz was still a Canadian at the time) It was only the 2014 defeat of Eric Cantor that stopped it.

However, contrary to Cruz’s lies, the truth is – long before the Canadian citizen began campaigning for the senate, Donald Trump held a consistently tough position on immigration. EXAMPLE 2010:

EXAMPLE 2011:

And during Canadian Ted Cruz’s first year in the Senate 2013:  Trump Warns the GOP Comprehensive Immigration Reform is Suicide:

As Republican lawmakers attempt to determine a plan for immigration reform that jibes with both conservatives and members of the Latino community, Donald Trump, the real estate magnate and reality television host, has another message for the GOP: Immigration reform, he argues, basically amounts to a “suicide mission” for the party.

Trump, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Oxon Hill, Md., argued this morning that the “11 million illegals, even if given the right to vote – you know you’re going to have to do what’s right – but the fact is 11 million people will be voting Democrat.” (link)

This message is evident in Trump’s continual social media expressions about this same issue:

Trump immigration

A position Donald Trump has continually stated.  (Via Huffington Post w/ Video)

[…]  Trump cited border security as another reason Republicans shouldn’t consider immigration reform.

“The border’s not secure — we don’t have secure borders anywhere — the borders are secure from Europe,” Trump said. “I mean, the fact is if you want to come in from Europe and if you want to become a citizen and you’re not here illegally and you go through the paperwork and the filing, you can’t get in.” (link)

It would appear the junior Canadian senator continues to struggle with the truth.

Made In America

trump happy crowd

 

This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2016, media bias, Ted Cruz, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

200 Responses to When Cruz Was Still Canadian Donald Trump Was Tough on Immigration – A Historic Review…

  1. Prothonotary Warbler says:

    GaslighTED.

    Liked by 15 people

  2. Doodahdaze says:

    Conflicted Conservatives. For amnesty and for the bad trade deals.

    Liked by 4 people

    • And they claim love of the Constitution, but have NO PROBLEM with voting on SECRET LAW, hidden from the very WE, THE PEOPLE who must live under it.

      Let us ask this FINE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR (pausing to vomit), Senator Cruz, what the Founders might have said about SECRET LAW.

      I know how Castro feels about secret law. Why is that closer to what Ted lives, than to what Ted says?

      Liked by 7 people

    • USA Patriot says:

      To Dood:
      Rush is still pushing the conflicted conservative Ted Cruz and saying yesterday that Trump would cut liberal deals if he becomes President. Rush is the same guy who called true blood Globalists Paul Ryan, Rubio and GWB conservatives — anyone with an R next to his name.

      Remember Dubai Ports and how Rush endorsed that and carried the liberal water for amnesty king GWB for 8 years. Rush needs to be exposed for the GOPe, Globalist he is — for even now, with the country at stake, Rush is pushing proven Globalist, slippery Cruz over Pro-American Trump and this is why Iowa is even close.

      El-Rushbo’s loyalty is to the big money power Elites and not to We the People and he is hurting true conservatism by mixing it with sellout Globalism..

      Liked by 3 people

    • aur1640 says:

      Not conflicted conservatives, they are plain cuckservatives. For me, conflict implies they are having difficulty making a decision which inadvertantly becomes a bad one any way. This is just the unadulterated screwing of the Republic. I live for schlonging of these twerps with our vulgarian and chief!!

      Like

  3. wheatietoo says:

    It Teddybear Cruz really cared about this country, he wouldn’t be doing this to us.
    Destroying the ‘born here’ requirement for the presidency will effectively end this country’s sovereignty….he knows this, and he doesn’t care.

    Liked by 27 people

    • Melania for 1st Lady says:

      Wheatietoo, I Love your comment. The most dangerous snake in the grass has been Rafael all along. We almost don’t even have a country anymore.

      Liked by 12 people

      • parteagirl says:

        Wise King Solomon settled a dispute between two women who claimed the same baby by seeing who loved the baby more- the woman willing to see it ripped in half so each of them could have part of it, or the one who was willing to give it up to preserve its life.

        Dear Ted Cruz,
        If you really love our Country and its Constitution, preserve its life by let go of your campaign for President.
        Signed,
        America First Citizens

        Liked by 11 people

        • archer52 says:

          It’s okay to let the candidates fight it out. Remember, this is America, we get the watch the process.

          And be thankful. We could be democrats and watching the HRC coronation, knowing full well she is a felon and a liar and basically a HUGE POS! At least our guys didn’t get Americans killed outright to promote their political careers.

          What you are saying is like you watching your favorite football team on TV and advocating for the other team to forfeit.

          How about seeing if your team is good enough to beat them?

          I’m enjoying this and I’m learning more about both candidates.

          PS- you might be seeing the team Pres/VP, so don’t kick too hard. Unless Trump picks a Rino “to bring the nation together”. (Think Reagan and GB1)

          Lastly, and this does bother me. What kind of Supreme Court justices and federal judges would Trump advocate for? That’s coming in the next Presidential cycle. My fear is he’ll make the same mistakes GW1 did, maybe GWB. It is a matter of what he considers “conservative” from his perspective (which is not conservative) and life history.

          Basically, William Kennedy or John Roberts vs Scalia or Thomas. God help us if another Sotomayor shows up! Or…gulp!..Ginsberg!! Yikes!

          Like

    • seventhndr says:

      I can’t remember if it was here, somewhere else, another article… but someone made a comment that made the point quite succinctly. “Ted ran down to the border to take care of illegals, but how many times has he done anything to take care of our veterans?”

      Liked by 20 people

    • I say he knows it and he DOES care. He cares about the NAU. He is another “world-annointed barely-American”, intent on changing this country against its will.

      In fact, I have my doubts that his fine Constitutional knowledge, so much better than Obama’s, was not instrumental in designing our predicament.

      If Cruz refuses to get a declaratory judgment of eligibility, then we know his TRUE feelings toward the Constitution.

      Love in word – disrespect in deed.

      Liked by 7 people

    • lorac says:

      Destroying the ‘born here’ requirement for the presidency will effectively end this country’s sovereignty….he knows this, and he doesn’t care.

      Oh, so well said. Can you (or someone) tweet it to Trump? He should say that. That statement you have made would resonate with so many, regardless of party. (ok, not with Obama’s people, but with the people who count, the majority)

      Liked by 5 people

    • facebkwallflower says:

      Oh, he cares. He wants our sovreignty gone, gone, gone. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. Dominionism is communism packaged as God’s will and tied with a prophecy bow.

      Liked by 7 people

    • hocuspocus13 says:

      Actually from what has been presented the Constitution holds no words “born here” to be President

      It was a spin of the Constitution the Democrats with the help of some Republicans put into motion to get Obama in office after of course they threw McCain under the bus

      A child at birth takes the Country of the childs natural Father

      A child born in a land that is not the within the childs fathers country becomes the childs place of birth and not the childs country

      When Obama was born he inherited his fathers country or citizenship as his own making Obama not eligible to be President

      Liked by 2 people

      • Director says:

        Natural Born has a precise judicial meaning.

        It arose in a dispute in England about a Scot born before James I became king.

        Natural Born has a statutory meaning that is part of common law.

        Like

    • PatriotKate says:

      We all have to be activists. It is not enough to be armchair Patriots.I regularly contact campaigns, call my State and Federal legislators. It’s all well and good to fight the good fight on other websites, but it’s not enough.

      Therefore, I hope everyone here will do what I did yesterday. Contact Ted Cruz and tell him to get the hell out of the race. I admonished him for his arrogant, selfish dismissal of the importance of Presidential eligibility and how dare he do this to America.

      https://www.tedcruz.org/contact/

      Liked by 8 people

    • tz says:

      #C-section – Caesar wasn’t naturally born either.
      Cruz himself is trapped in a paradox of his own creation. If the constitution needs a strict construction, literal, historic reading – which he says he supports – he isn’t eligible. If he wants the “living document” dead letter school, there is no point in voting for him.
      Into a corner, painTed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • USA Patriot says:

      To Wheatie:
      Cruz pushing hard for TPA for Obamtrade passage really sells out America’s sovereignty, big time — and his Iran/Corker bill vote did also. Cruz is the poster boy for cheap labor, sellout Globalism; yet Rush and company keep calling him the only real conservative and call Pro-American Trump a liberal.

      Follow the money with these turncoat radio Talkers.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Know them by their fruits. Everyone talks a good game. You, me, Ted.

      The only way to really know a man is by the fruit of his actions.

      Ted is out for Ted. Donald is out for Donald. We’re lucky that Donald cares very much about the USA. Ted, I am not sure what he really cares about, but I am pretty sure his ambition isn’t for the good of the red, white and blue. If anything good happens to the US under his watch, it is a coincidence.

      Liked by 1 person

      • amjean says:

        I think you are wrong about the intent of
        Donald Trump. He is not gaining anything
        by becoming president. He put his business
        and his monies on the line in order to help
        the country. Take it back! LOL

        Liked by 2 people

        • I have a very different view on human action from most people. I think that every creature acts out of self-interest. Every creature.

          It is to our benefit that Trump is a patriot. So saving the country is very much in his interest. It is exactly what he wants to be doing.

          Liked by 2 people

          • KBR says:

            That’s a very cynical point of view.

            My interest in this is for future generations, not just from my own DNA. It would be a foolish thing to want only my own DNA progeny to have a great USA, they need people to share it. People have always needed people outside of their family group.

            But at the same time my heart is for my children, grandchildren, future great grandchildren and so on down the line.

            My ancestors were first generation USA patriots, meaning they fought the War of Independence. Perhaps that makes my perspective different that your own?

            Liked by 2 people

            • It isn’t a cynical view. It is a rational, accurate view.

              Whatever you care about, by working towards it or caring about it, you are expressing your will as an individual.

              At the risk of being too reductive, what you care about is always in your self-interest. People don’t act against their self-interest.

              Yes, some people donate, some people volunteer. They do that because they want to. Because it makes them feel good, or gives them a sense of higher purpose.

              That is my point with Trump. He loves America and always has. And we’re lucky that he is a man of great wealth and skill, and fame. He is willing to use all of those things to help the country he cares most about.

              Hopefully now people can understand the point I was making.

              Liked by 2 people

              • Not cynical at all. Cooperative behavior is emergent, and I contend that it is so by the most fundamental design, readable locally as self-interest. Were this tendency not sufficiently localized and self-centric, it wouldn’t actually work.

                Liked by 1 person

            • The way I see it, it is not the center of self which changes with enlightenment, but the radius of self which increases.

              Liked by 1 person

            • swissik says:

              I disagree that the comment is cynical, but perhaps it is because I see it the same way. I have six grandchildren. My own children are first generation Americans. As my father got old he used to say that he no longer worries because the younger generation will take care of things, and that is how it should be. An old friend of mine has a motto to deal with issues that she cannot do anything about, she says: “in a hundred years all new people”.

              Like

          • Rev21v3n4 says:

            Mother Theresa
            Jonathan Edwards
            C.S. Lewis
            D.L. Moody
            Dietrich Bonhoeffer
            Maewyn Succat (10 points if you know who this is)
            Pope Fabian
            Origen
            Polycarp
            William Tyndale
            Francis Ferdinand de Capillas
            Billy Graham
            And millions of others…

            While true we are born in sin and pride, rebellion and selfishness are part of our DNA, many–MANY–rise above that and serve selflessly. You need to get out of your worldview and look around a bit. It’s not all darkness. There are some very bright lights.

            Like

            • You misunderstand if you think I am talking about darkness.

              And are not very good at reading comprehension if you still don’t understand what I wrote.

              But that’s ok. I love you friend.

              Like

              • Rev21v3n4 says:

                No, I didn’t misunderstand. It is exactly why I responded the way I did. It is darkness to dwell on a bleak, implacable premise and why I offered some people of light who rose above self-interest. May you grow and blossom in the light.🙂

                Like

    • KBR says:

      He really doesn’t care. Heidi and Ted really want to be the leaders of North American Union, as described by Heidi in her own words! If there were no longer a USA, but (Canada/Mexico/Central America/ Mexico/Cuba and all North American islands combined) just a North America, Ted’s claim of being NBC would fit then wouldn’t it?

      He studied the Constitution the better to know how to rip it apart!

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I will never vote for a person who was 1 born on foreign soil, 2 to a none citizen father, 3, a mother who (may have) renounced her own citizenship.

    If I thought it was concerning when it came to Obama, simply having an ‘R’ after your name does not remove my concern. I mean, at least Obama bothered with the pretense of being born in Hawaii. But then, I think Barack had been selected long ago to run for president. Whereas, when it comes to Cruz, its all about his arrogance and presumption.

    Liked by 8 people

    • KBR says:

      Just because the Leftists did something doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make it legal, and doesn’t make it something a REAL constitution-loving US citizen should do!

      I just despise seeing comments saying “they did it so we can too!”
      If “they” do much more to the USA, we won’t have a USA!

      Get real!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. lorac says:

    Wow. Excellent essay.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. RINOKiller says:

    Time for Charles Bronson

    Liked by 3 people

  7. And what’s up with freshmen senators, thinking ‘hey, I hardly show up for my new lofty job, I think I’ll run to get in the White House!’?

    Liked by 11 people

  8. margarite1 says:

    This Cruz is a real snake in the grass. Not only is he lying about his own record but he has the gall to say that Donald was nowhere to be found? DJT wasn’t in the government and Trump’s position could have been easily found as Sundance did with his posts.

    What a slimy liar Cruz is. I used to think I’d be ok voting for him if he somehow pulled it off and now I have to take that back.

    Arrogant creep.

    Liked by 9 people

  9. bertdilbert says:

    Ted says he respects The Donald and then he lies about him. Must be Texas values.

    Liked by 2 people

    • My Texan ancestors approve of your sarcasm, for these lies are surely neither Texan, nor New York, nor any kind of American values. They are lying, usurping, worldbot values, foreign to everything this nation stands for.

      Liked by 10 people

      • bertdilbert says:

        I knew a real Texan would have been by shortly to disown Teddy bear Cruz! Maybe they can show their displeasure next time he is up for election and put in a true conservative.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Trump has certainly raised our discernment level in that respect. In fact, #FoisTED may just be a one-termer.

          Very sobering to realize that Cruz may not have gotten in “despite” Uniparty opposition, but actually by Uniparty design – with cover opposition.

          Liked by 5 people

          • RP says:

            I’m with you on this one cankles. I starting to think nothing comes out of DC that hasn’t been thoroughly planned, carefully positioned, bought, sold and blackmailed.

            This said, keep a very close eye on Tom Cotton.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Notmeagain says:

            See my comment above. What have all these recent (since 1960) movers and shakers had in common? Harvard law school, with Princeton and Yale right behind. I mean, we know they are full of lefties, but maybe they aren’t random lefties, they are lefties with a specific agenda, to keep candidates in the pipeline.

            Liked by 1 person

            • They’re not random lefties. You’re right. This explains certain people. They’ve pre-positioned vultures on all these places, to turn, control, marginalize, or destroy the fresh meat – in that order. And not just the law schools. Everywhere. It’s like that Turkish influence program, only more subtle and thorough. They probably got the idea from what is happening here.

              Like

            • KBR says:

              Skull n Bones Yaleys.
              Leftists pour from Harvard.

              Liked by 1 person

  10. If I was Trump, I’d print out what Ted said; go to Iowa and correct the fact in front of them.

    Read Ted’s statements and go

    “See… this is why you can’t trust Politicians because they lie. Go to my twitter @realDonaldTrump and go back to 2013. I was saying how STUPID the Republicans were. I was the only one saying ‘Newsflash…those 11 Million will never vote Republican.’

    “And on another note…you know…The Gang of 8 Bill passed the Senate. Folks…Ted failed to stop it in the Senate, Ted failed a lot in the Senate. I don’t lose, I like to win! Now…Ted lost, bill passed. It wasn’t Cruz who stopped this bill. It was the people like you in Virginia. They got rid of Eric Cantor as a message and it scared the SHIT out of the Establishment. They deserve the credit. The Tea Party members, the people in Virginia who voted for David Brat; their the ones who deserve the credit. Not Ted Cruz. So they got rid of Cantor…establishment panicked and Amnesty died.

    “Now imagine when I win…”

    He has to say something similar.

    Liked by 13 people

    • Crassus says:

      Dave Brat never got a dime in financial support from his local Richmond Tea Party or ANY of the national Tea Party groups. He won the election against Eric Cantor all on his own. I’m not going to say that the Tea Party was in the tank for Cantor but they do enjoy paying their own officers large salaries which come from donations. I guess after the checks were cut they had no money left to contribute to Dave Brat.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Jack Long says:

    I was looking around last night and found some information, new to me, that adds more grist for the Ted Cruz birth circumstances mill.

    To be brief, Canada only started Canadian citizenship in 1947. Before that they had been British.
    Accordingly, in the 1947 – 1977 period, the citizenship laws addressed the transition period. This set of conditions were in effect in the 1947 – 1977 period, and some were dropped or amended after 1977. That is, some are no longer applicable.

    Wikipedia – History of Canadian nationality law

    A couple of things stand out here, if I read and understand everything correctly:

    Citizenship by birth required one parent to have been a citizen or resident alien (landed immigrant) of Canada.

    Foreign women married to a Canadian citizen were granted Canadian citizenship after one year of permanent residency (landed immigrant).

    From what I’ve read, mother and father Cruz moved to Canada in 1969 and Ted Cruz was born at the end of December, 1970.

    First things first, how did one of them require permanent residency in one to two years?

    Draft Dodgers – Canada and the Vietnam War

    The operative concept is that groups in Canada actively helped draft dodgers with permanent residence status.

    Father Cruz was married in 1959 and would have had a draft deferment until 1965. After 1965 he would have been grandfathered. If he got a divorce he would have been draft eligible again.

    The Paris Peace Accord was singed in January, 1973. Father Cruz returned to the US in 1973 or close thereafter <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/09/ted-cruz-reveals-familys-struggles-including-parents-alcohol-abuse/"<Ted Cruz Reveals Family's Struggles, Including Parents' Alcohol Abuse

    “When I was 3 years old, my father decided he didn’t want to be married anymore and he didn’t want a 3-year-old son, so he got on a plane and left.”

    I’m going with father Cruz being a draft dodger and using the help available to get residency status. When the danger of being drafted ended, he booked it back to the US. That’s my guess.

    The grant of citizenship to a woman married to a Canadian citizen really surprised me and opens up a whole new dimension regarding the Ted Cruz’s birth circumstances.

    If any are willing to look over the links and tell me if I misread/misinterpreted anything I would appreciate it.

    If things are as I perceive then to be, then the divorce and marriage documents of the parents and Ted Cruz’s US passport application need to be made public to clear the whole mess up.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Kathryn J. Hernandez says:

      Interesting & plausable scenario. We won’t ever know the truth due to Ted’s sealed records. Why is citizenshio document secrecy allowed when running for POTUS in 5he first place? He obviously has much to hide.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jack Long says:

        I don’t understand why the records are sealed, either.

        Even in the scenario (which I think unlikely) that his mother became a Canadian citizen before Cruz’s birth, she still would have been an US Citizen as well. Cruz’s birth status as a US citizen wouldn’t have changed.

        There are so many variables in play at this point that it’s almost impossible to assume anything other than that he’s trying to hide something by sealing the records.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Incisor says:

          Natural Born Citizen
          A person born of TWO American citizen parents in a location that does not require Naturalized Citizenship (ie American Soil (state or territory), American Military Base or stationed overseas as part of an American contingent whether military or government).
          For instance:
          I was born in Louisiana to two American citizens therefore I am a NBC.
          Ted Cruz’s father was not an American citizen therefore he is not NBC regardless of his mother’s citizenship status. That is what I believe NBC means and no constitutional scholar, political hack (I’m talking to you Mark Levin) or random commenter on a website will sway my definition. Many feel the same (some say between 3-5M people subscribe to that definition).
          With that being the case and if those 3-5M people won’t vote for Cruz for the same reason I will not, how do the Cruzbots expect to win a general election without us?
          Trump is NBC as his mother and father were American citizens at his birth. Rubio is not as neither of his parents were citizens at his birth. I do believe that both Cruz and Rubio are citizens but neither is NBC. Those are my facts and I am sticking to them.🙂
          In fact, based on Cruz’s birth circumstances, he is even LESS eligible than Owebama.
          The one thing we cannot do is replace a DemocRat usurper with a Republican usurper.

          Liked by 6 people

        • georgiafl says:

          Canada did not allow dual citizenship until 1977 – so if Eleanor Cruz became a Canadian citizen before Ted was born, she had to renounce her US citizenship.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Jack Long says:

            The way I read that issue was if mother Cruz, as a Canadian, went to another country and became a citizen she would have had to renounce her Canadian citizenship.

            As a US citizen, becoming a Canadian citizen would not have affected her US citizenship because US laws don’t address dual citizenship. If she had renounced her US citizenship after Ted Cruz was born, it would not have affected Ted Cruz’s citizenship status, if she renounced before, that’s a different matter, and how Ted Cruz get a US Passport?

            That’s just what I think, I don’t know for sure.

            If you look through the various progression of the Canadian citizenship qualifications in the first link you’ll see that there are some really unusual criteria. Some include minor children, paying of taxes, etc. IIRC. None of those seem to apply, but I was focussed on the marriage qualification and the one parent must be a Canadian citizen or resident alien qualification and trying to make sure I understood it correctly.

            If you figure that resident aliens status could be procured via groups that knew their way around immigration law, then the possibility that one of Cruz’s parents was a resident alien or citizen of Canada in less than 2 years of residency is pretty good.

            Like

            • georgiafl says:

              Someone posited on another thread that Canada made special accommodations for acquiring Canadian citizenship during the Viet Nam years.

              Like

              • Jack Long says:

                I read that as well, but haven’t seen it anywhere.

                The groups that aided the draft dodgers to gain permanent residence are enough for now. The possibility for quick citizenship was available, apparently.

                With the shortened time span required for citizenship a lot more cards are on the table.

                Like

            • How did O get several Social security numbers that do not pass e-verify? How did O’s selective service records get tampered with?
              GOPe fix is in, as directed by the global elite.

              Liked by 1 person

        • USA Patriot says:

          Rush, Levin, Hannity demand true blood conservative lawyer and caveat expert Ted Cruz unseal his birth records and it will out an end to this controversy.

          Rush what happen to the truth detector — something smells fishy in Canada so let’s remove the stench.

          Liked by 2 people

      • USA Patriot says:

        To Kathryn:
        Are Ted’s cheerleaders Levin and Rush demanding that Ted’s sealed records be opened? Have they even mentioned them?

        Liked by 2 people

    • Kathryn J. Hernandez says:

      Interesting & plausable scenario. We won’t ever know the truth due to Ted’s sealed records. Why is citizenshio document secrecy allowed when running for POTUS? He obviously has much to hide.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Incisor says:

        Sealed records should automatically disqualify anyone from running for office period.
        You are running to be a public official, if your record can’t stand the scrutiny, you should not be in the race.

        Liked by 12 people

        • hocuspocus13 says:

          If you have documents drawn up to become an American Citizen you are “naturaluzed” and not eligible to be President

          Liked by 2 people

        • NCPatrick says:

          Absolutely Incisor! Sealed records are a huge red flag and should be a disqualifier. Those records could contain most any sort of legal (or illlegal) finding, and it is incredible to me that Cruz hasn’t been pushed harder on this issue alone!

          Liked by 1 person

    • Toronto Tonto says:

      But Rafael Cruz claims to have entered the US on a student visa, or am I wrong? Would he have been drafted for Vietnam?

      Like

      • Jack Long says:

        He either overstayed his visa or had it switched to another status, since he was in the US longer than a student visa allowed for.

        The other consideration is that if his first wife was a US citizen, he could have/would have gotten a green card via that marriage.

        Green cards were draft eligible.

        I can’t say for sure either way. My take is that I think his actions were in line with that of a draft dodger ( I was draft age in that era). I can’t rule out that he wasn’t and I don’t think it is that much of a stretch for me to consider that he was.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Toronto Tonto says:

          Mind you, this comes straight from Rafael Cruz, so it’s 99% BS, but he claims he got an SSN straight off the boat, a job as a dishwasher, because he couldn’t speak English. Then he learned English in a month and began preaching the gospel of Castro and the glorious revolution at Austin area Rotary Clubs. He was 18 years old. The video was on Freedom Works, then it went down the memory hole.


          Got to Austin, went straight to the University office of student affairs and I said “Well here I am” Was a month before school started and I said “Well I need a job. I don’t have any money” Well within twenty four hours they send me to the IRS and within twenty fours I had a social security number. A valid, legal social security number. And, because I needed to work to pay for my university. I couldn’t speak a word of English so the obvious job was being a dishwasher, you don’t have to talk to anybody to wash dishes.

          So I got a job as a dishwasher, worked full-time, went to school full-time. And at the beginning of 1958, I learned English very quickly, I’d started speaking at different Rotary clubs around Austin, Texas, in favour of Castro. I still thought that he was the saviour of the country.

          Liked by 1 person

          • TwoLaine says:

            “I still thought that he was the saviour of the country.”

            So he’s not too good at picking saviors of countries. Let’s not listen to his current pick.

            Liked by 1 person

          • MfM says:

            Rotary Clubs have a different speaker every week, so speaking at one isn’t that big a deal if you try a little. Heck if you had an interesting story or experience I could get you into at least four around me.

            Like

          • KBR says:

            Supposing his story were true. What would it take for such a young immigrant to get that kind of help? I mean immediate SS#, immediate entry to Uni?
            1 thing: connections to a powerful person who had connections in the government.
            The government hasn’t just been a pack of crooks for a few years.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Really, the more I hear about Cruz the more questions I have about him. I thought at one time he was a likable guy, my second choice in the Republican presidential primary. The more I learn about him the more I begin to think he is an establishment crook and Trump is the only choice. The bad news about Cruz and his strange family just never seems to end.

              Liked by 2 people

          • I’m smelling a red diaper somewhere.

            sniff, sniff

            Seems to be coming from both Cuba and Canada.

            Liked by 2 people

    • Jack Long says:

      I have to do a little housekeeping to fix the ABC news link that I hosed. I keep over looking the apostrophes in the link description.

      ABC News – Ted Cruz Reveals Family Struggles, Including Parents’ Alcohol Abuse

      Liked by 1 person

    • hocuspocus13 says:

      Perhaps that is why Cruz has sealed his American Citizenship Documents which many believe do not exist

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack Long says:

        Citizenship, basically, is applying for a passport. Outside the US you get a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (if you qualify) and can get a passport then.

        If you were born abroad, are present in the US and don’t have a CRBA , you apply for a passport and file for a certificate of citizenship, which includes your documentation.to verify you are eligible for citizenship.

        The factor that affects the citizenship eligibility a lot is a birth in or out of wedlock.Then it gets into age of the mother and time spent in the US, etc.

        That’s why I say to clear this up Cruz will have to show marriage/divorce documents of the parents and his passport application.

        My question is what could be so ‘bad’ in those documents, in this day and age, that would make Cruz want to seal his records?

        Like

    • Notmeagain says:

      What about mom’s brief stay in England? As part of the Empire, did time there add to the time required for citizenship in Canada? Remember it used to be pretty fluid between the Commonwealth countries (which is how the muzzies got in).

      Like

      • Eskie Mom says:

        Ommigosh, I hadn’t even thought about this, How long was she in England? Does it matter? (literally matter- how does it apply?, not ‘What difference does it make?’ matter)

        Like

      • Jack Long says:

        The mother was in England with the first husband for 2 or 3 years around 1964. I don’t think that would have any effect on Canadian residency since Canada began their own citizenship process in 1947.

        With the marriage grant of citizenship for a foreign born wife of a Canadian citizen after a 1 year residency that was in place in 1970, years of residency anywhere else is a moot point.

        If father Cruz received Canadian citizenship via an expedited process after arrival in country in 1969, and his wife is granted citizenship 1 year thereafter, there exists the mathematical possibility that mother Cruz received Canadian citizenship before Ted Cruz was born in late December of 1970.

        I don’t think that happened, and I also don’t think it would have affected Ted Cruz’s status as a US citizen at birth through his mother. IANAL and there aren’t any Holiday Inns around here, so it’s nothing more than my uneducated opinion.

        The optics of having being born in Canada to a mother and father who were Canadian citizens isn’t going to fly as well having a US born mother, though. As I said above, I think mother Cruz would have still had her US citizenship even if she had become a Canadian citizen, but the lawyer/Holiday Inn qualifier applies here as well.

        None of this has to do with a natural born condition, just Ted Cruz’s status as a US citizen. I don’t think he’s a natural born US citizen in any circumstance discussed so far.

        Like

        • I’ve been wondering…

          Canada didn’t allow dual citizenship until 1977, correct? That’s what I’ve read. Cruz was born a Canadian citizen in 1970 – fact, he’s released his Canadian birth certificate.

          How could his mother have claimed US citizenship for him when he was born – 1970 and he still retain his Canadian citizenship if Canada didn’t allow dual citizenship then? Wouldn’t Canada have stripped his Canadian citizenship or something to that effect?

          Wouldn’t his mother had to have applied for Cruz’s US citizenship sometime after Canada began allowing dual citizenship – 1977 – for Cruz to be a dual citizen until he renounced in 2014?

          Am I missing something here ’cause the dates just don’t match up to me….

          Like

          • Jack Long says:

            I don’t think you are missing anything, in fact, I think you are precisely on target.

            I was trying to figure that out and decided that the only way to truly answer that question is to see his passport application, specifically, where and when.

            Maybe you can say he was a US citizen at birth, and that the Canadian law said (as I understand it) that if a Canadian citizen naturalized in another country they have to give up Canadian citizenship; so the law didn’t really apply to him.

            An excellent question and I don’t really know any answer other than a guess.

            Liked by 1 person

    • KBR says:

      Mamma Cruz put her former married name on Ted’s birth certificate. Mamma Wilson.
      The Wilsons, mamma Cruz and first husband Wilson, were already British legal residents before 1947.
      Thus Mama was Mrs. Wilson, legal British resident status.

      Like

      • KBR says:

        Her status as a legal British resident is what allowed HER to settle in Canada.
        Perhaps it did not allow Cruz Sr. to stay there beyond a certain time limit, as he was a Cuban not having standing as a British resident alien.

        Like

        • KBR says:

          And yes, British citizens, between 1947 and 1977, DID indeed have some special rights to be allowed into Canada: the question is were British legal residents also included?
          Second question is after her marriage failed while she was still in England, did she become a British citizen? And if so did Britian and US allow dual citizenship at the time she was still in Britain?
          Just because her husband never applied while they were still married, does not mean she didn’t apply for British citizenship afterward, does it?

          In order to really prove birth US mother status, we need to know what her citizenship status actually WAS in 1970. Maybe British?

          Like

          • Jack Long says:

            Here’s a link to a Dallas news article I read earlier today: Cruz family drama: mom’s first husband is expat Texan in London

            The first husband was highly educated in the US, PhD, met mom at Rice, so mom also went to a good school.

            They moved to England in 1960, marriage went south c. 1963. Mother Cruz had a child in 1965, who died within a year, but not from first husband. First husband said they were divorced, and only knew about the birth because coincidentally he was in the same hospital when the birth occurred. First husband said mother Cruz asked him if he could use the Wilson name. He agreed.

            Interesting side note is that mother Cruz claims death of child ended the marriage, but the first husband said it ended earlier, they were divorced, and he was not involved in the pregnancy.

            That tells us mother Cruz was in England for at least 6 years. First husband said neither he nor his first wife ever became British subjects.

            First husband did not know mother Cruz used the first husband’s name on Ted Cruz’s birth certificate.

            I would say with 6 years in country she had to have had a work permit, i.e residency permit, for the UK, so that angle may have been a factor in a Canadian residency card or citizenship.

            The qualifications in that 1947 – 1977 period were so wide-ranging that it seems anything could have been possible.

            Like

    • Alexander Reagan says:

      Since Ted Cruz is/was a citizen of Canada, does that mean/did that mean, he is/was, a subject of the British Crown?

      Just asking.

      Like

  12. Mike says:

    The Bushes and the Cruzes are recent East Coast imports, whether CT or Cuba, faux “Texans”.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. sheridan says:

    I still don’t get why someone born in Canada is still running in the first place and why candidates aren’t strictly vetted beforehand. Ted Cruz has always been, for me, the copy Trump guy. He just rides on Trump coat tails and then presents Trump talking points as his own. I honestly don’t think he is a threat to Donald Trump because he is not easy to relate too and he doesn’t walk the talk.

    Liked by 3 people

    • hocuspocus13 says:

      Agree…completely

      Potential Candidates running for President should have all their necessary documents presented by deadline before they can print up 1 campaign sign…make their first speech or take1 single buffalo head nickle…

      To make sure they are eligible

      Liked by 4 people

      • Zennalou says:

        I agree 100%. I was traveling the day Obama was elected the 2nd time. I stopped to get something to eat and watch the election returns. I ordered coffee with dinner. It didn’t take long to see we were facing another 4 years of Obama. I almost never drink, but decided I needed something strong and ordered. The waitress asked for my ID ( I was 60+ at the time). If at age 60+ I need an ID to buy a drink, is it too much to ask that someone running for PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES prove they qualify? Another thing she ask for ID before she mixed or served the drink, and before I drank the drink, not afterwards. So, these candidates need to prove eligibility before, not afterwards. Off my soap box for now.

        Liked by 1 person

    • RP says:

      I wonder if…

      If you recall several years ago ( I think shortly before or shortly after Obama 2008) Soros had an initiative to fund and select the Secretaries of State nationally to influence voter law (ID verification) and certification. Did this ever get anywhere and if so, is this why we don’t see any states challenging background checks and eligibility verification?

      I don’t know, seems pretty simple to me that any of the 50 states can pass a law saying that any federal candidate up for vote in the state must prove (publicly) their eligibility. This way any candidate that ‘seals’ their historical records would not qualify to be on the ballot.

      Like

      • KBR says:

        If that is not a law, WE need to make it one in our respective states.
        Last Presidential campaign AND this Presidential campaign this has caused a lot of grief!

        Instead of waiting for somebody to rule federally (which means letting some judge parse the constitution to their own liking) we need to get petition drives going at every state level while the iron is hot!

        If candidates are ineligible for the ballot in a state, by state law the candidate cannot get on the ballot. The more states that they cannot run in, the less the chance of this question ever coming up again.

        Imagine trying to run a candidate that is outlawed from the ballot in 10, 12, 15 states? Or more? Not a chance.

        Liked by 2 people

    • pyromancer76 says:

      Doesn’t matter whether he is a “real” threat or not. If he takes votes away from The Donald, then he is doing Uniparty business and is a major threat — as well as a Liar.

      Like

  14. PatriotKate says:

    Another take by LameCherry about what should be done about Cruz:
    http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-cruz-gambit.html

    Liked by 2 people

    • hocuspocus13 says:

      Obama is not eligible to be President of the USA his country at birth was that of his fathers

      And we have all witnessed his alliengce is to just that…his fathers country…and its people

      Liked by 1 person

      • Betty says:

        And along with witnessing how destructive duel allegiance is to our country we also witness the wisdom of the Founding Fathers insistence that only person born in this country of two citizen parents is eligible to be President of this country.

        Some one posted this link and I would like to post it again:

        Like

    • TwoLaine says:

      Not original, but true.

      Like

  15. TRUMP IS THE ONLY SERIOUS/CONSISTENT CANDIDATE WHO WILL STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! HIS BOOKS PROVE IT:

    Trump is the ONLY serious candidate who will stop illegal immigration and uphold our immigration laws. Trump’s books prove his consistent stance:

    “Immigration – Protecting Our Own: There’s another area of foreign affairs that doesn’t get talked about very much, but it is a huge issue: Immigration. America is experiencing serious social and economic difficulty with illegal immigrants who are flooding across our borders. Five million illegals live in this country. Two million of them live in California. Seven hundred thousand undocumented immigrants live in Texas. We simply can’t absorb them. It is a scandal when America cannot control its own borders. A liberal policy of immigration may seem to reflect confidence and generosity. But our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally.”

    –Trump, Donald (2000-01-15). The America We Deserve (Kindle Locations 1670-1671).
    St. Martin’s Press. Kindle Edition.

    “Illegal immigration is a wrecking ball aimed at U.S. taxpayers. Washington needs to get tough and fight for “We the People,” not for the special interests who want cheap labor and a minority voting bloc. Every year taxpayers are getting stuck with a $113 billion bill to pay for the costs of illegal immigration. That’s a bill we can’t afford and wouldn’t have to pay if people in Washington did their jobs and upheld our nation’s laws.”

    — Trump, Donald J. (2011-12-06). Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again (p. 135).
    Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. Sanj says:

    Its nice to know that similar to the Soviet Politburo, Cruz makes up history as he needs to to fit his evolving narrative.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. hocuspocus13 says:

    …and let’s not forget about Rubio who is not eligible to be President

    Rubio was born on American soil in Miami Florida but that alone does not make him eligible

    Rubio was born to Cuban Citizen Parents aka “ankor baby”

    Rubio will be the Rupublican version of Obama

    Obamas allegiance is to Muslims Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood…his fathers country

    Rubio will have his allegiance to illegal immigrants…his fathers country

    As Obama had flooded America with Muslims

    Rubio will flood America with Illegals

    Liked by 3 people

    • TwoLaine says:

      YUP, none of them, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal are eligible. Just like The Oh? was never eligible. That is why the lawsuits should include all three. Their names need to be removed from the ballots entirely so no illegal votes roll to Jebra!

      Liked by 2 people

    • RP says:

      Well…don’t get me wrong I’m all Trump and don’t trust or would vote for Rubio but I think in fact, Constitutionally that Rubio is eligible. We need to be honest about our opinions and interpretation even if it may not be politically expedient…agree?

      My reasoning is that Cuba was an American Protectorate (pre-Castro) when his parents immigrated to the United States, which confers American to them citizenship and rights.

      Marco, therefore, was born on American soil to 2 American citizens.

      Like

      • KBR says:

        Cuba was the Republic of Cuba 1902 constitution.
        New Cuban constitution adopted 1940 was in full effect 12 years until 1952.

        Only parts of the 1940 Cuban Constitution were still in effect after the coup d’ etat in 1952, (Batista) but Castro’ s resistance and final overthrow of Batista, was based on bringing the 1940 Constitution back in full.

        So NO Rubio’s parents had no US citizen rights. They were citizens of the Republic of Cuba at their birth, not US citizens in any way nor by any stretch of “rights.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • KBR says:

        By your definition are all citizens of countries we protect (the actual meaning of protectorate) US Citizens? We currently protect Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Vietnam…and many other sovereign nations.

        Globalist values seem to have skewed your thinking RP, or are you attempting to skew ours?

        Rubio’s parents were citizens of the Republic of Cuba, a nation state with its own constitution, it’s own congress, it’s own legal system. They did NOT have rights as US citizens at all.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If that were true, they had no need to be naturalized later then, correct???

        However, it’s not true. Rubio’s parents were Cuban Nationals when Rubio was born. Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen. Per the 14th Amendment, he wasn’t even born a citizen since he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

        The framers of the 14th were very clear that subject to the jurisdiction of the US meant full, complete, sole, and exclusive jurisdiction of the US government. It meant the jurisdiction the government exercised over current citizens. It meant owing no allegiance to another sovereign. They were clear that it did not mean mere physical presence in the Country.

        Rubio’s parents – although here legally – did not have full, complete, sole, and exclusive allegiance to the US. They were still Cuban Nationals.

        Rubio is not Constitutionally eligible.

        Like

  18. TwoLaine says:

    How [Canadian Cuban] Ted Cruz Won His Senate Seat With Just 632,000 Votes in a State of 27 Million
    by Shawn M. Griffiths

    http://ivn.us/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-won-senate-seat-just-632000-votes-state-27-million/

    Like

  19. I am babbled as to how Grampa MunsTED cunningly convinced the American voters that he is an ‘outsider’ . Hell, he has been way past 9 months in the womb of the ‘Establishment’. His umbilical cord is also tied to the NWO! How, pray tell, does he not have ‘insider’ blood coursing through his veins?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. TwoLaine says:

    From Ted’s own Senate.gov page:

    “Immigration

    As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates legal immigration. He has championed measures to secure the border, reform the legal immigration system, and uphold the rule of law.

    Americans, and particularly Texans, have witnessed the harmful effects of an unsecure border, endangering the lives both of citizens and those who enter illegally. President Obama’s policies have encouraged drug smugglers, child abusers, murderers, and other dangerous criminals to traffick immigrant children into our nation under life-threatening conditions. In the summer of 2013 we witnessed a humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border, propelled by promises of amnesty from the White House. Immigrants deserve a better system in which they will be welcomed to the United States safely and with dignity.

    As a critical step to protecting families and inviting more people to enter legally, in 2014, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation to prevent Obama from illegally expanding amnesty. The House acted to solve the ongoing crisis and passed bills that closely mirrored Sen. Cruz’s proposals, but regrettably the Senate Democrats refused to allow a vote on the measures.

    In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the “Gang of 8” bill that would strengthen border security, expand green card opportunities, increase high-skilled “H1B” visas, prevent illegal aliens from receiving welfare benefits, and enforce the rule of law.”

    http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=33

    Like

    • KBR says:

      I notice he says “Americans” and not “US citizens.”
      When Ted says “Americans” I automatically use A Tedian definition: all people who live on the North American and South American continents may be called “American.”

      I guess being a Carolinian makes me a bit more aware.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Funny you mentioning that. Whenever possible I try to use US and US citizen because ‘America’ can mean North or South America. I just like to be precise to avoid confusion. (I’m a little OCD – shhh, don’t tell anyone)

        Liked by 1 person

        • KBR says:

          I’ve been thinking about coining a new three letter easy to type thing: USC
          As long as people get the context, I doubt there would be confusion, after all we abbreviate NBC and don’t mean the National Broadcasting Company. 😄

          Liked by 1 person

  21. georgiafl says:

    Cruz’s Michigan Campaign Chief is none other than Grover Norquist. LINK

    That says it all for me. Norquist is the Republican tactician who converted to Islam and Islamified CPAC.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. TwoLaine says:

    Where does it mention building a wall?

    “National Security

    A strong national defense safeguards the interests of the United States and ensures that we preserve the blessings of liberty. To that end, Sen. Cruz has sponsored and introduced legislation to strengthen our national security.

    A unifying moment for protecting U.S. security interests came in the spring of 2014, when both houses of Congress passed and the President signed into law legislation Sen. Cruz had introduced to prevent terrorists from entering the United States as U.N. Ambassadors, a plan Iran intended to implement.

    In the summer of 2014, the Senate also passed Sen. Cruz’s rewards bill to seek information and find the Hamas terrorists who murdered Naftali Fraenkel and ensure that justice is served. In 2013, Sen. Cruz introduced similar legislation to offer rewards for information on the enemies who attacked U.S. personnel at Benghazi.

    In 2014, Sen Cruz introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which would prevent U.S. citizens who join ISIS from reentering the United States. Additionally, in 2014, Sen. Cruz introduced the “Sanction Iran, Safeguard America” Act to re-impose more stringent sanctions on Iran and prohibit further negotiations with Iran unless congressional approval is reached.

    In a bipartisan effort, Sen Cruz filed legislation with Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-New York, to condemn the use of civilians as human shields by the terrorist group Hamas.”

    http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=21

    Like

  23. TwoLaine says:

    Laura Ingraham iz sad. 😦

    She wants TRUMP to “work with” Canadian Cuban Ted Cruz.

    OuTED!

    Like

    • catmom says:

      Another talker with some “friendly” advice? These people who think they have influence this time around. Not so much. Mr. Trump has left them at the station. They just don’t know it. How silly. “Work with”??? What does that even mean?

      Liked by 3 people

      • TwoLaine says:

        She felt TRUMP should have just let Canadian/Cuban Rafael/Ted draft behind him longer. At least through IA, NH, maybe SC. He didn’t have to spill all his dirty secrets, I mean, be so hard on him this early in the game.

        In other words, it’s OK to deceive the stupid Americans again. We got away with it last time. Maybe no one will notice. First we Gruber them, then we schlong them.

        Liked by 1 person

        • USA Patriot says:

          Most of the Radio Talkers are GOPe “deceivers” and now outing themselves — the beauty of Trump and the fallout of his unabashed Patriotism. I Love it.

          Liked by 1 person

      • TwoLaine says:

        In her own words…

        Like

        • Most people think John Adams is you-tube personality? “Regular people” aren’t tuned in to the election yet? Thanks for the insult Ingraham. She also says there is no “clear front-runner yet”. Love the way these pundits casually give double digit front-runner Trump campaign advice. Also Trump didn’t say “If I can win Iowa I am gonna run the table” He said ” I am gonna run the table in Iowa.”

          Liked by 1 person

  24. jackmcg says:

    Donald Trump in 1999 !!!! In favor of strict immigration control:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/10/us/a-question-trails-trump-is-he-really-a-candidate.html

    “The one issue on which Mr. Trump was firm was restrictions in immigration. ”I’m opposed to new people coming in,” he said. ”We have to take care of the people who are here.””

    Liked by 2 people

  25. John Galt says:

    lying, flip-flopping, GoldmanSachs $$, creepy religion, eligibility issue, Corker, amnesty

    TED should look into an automated system to handle all his baggage.

    Liked by 6 people

    • joanfoster says:

      Calling Theodore Cruz, calling Ted Cruz, calling Rafael Edward Cruz, please report to baggage claim. You’ve got some “splainin” to do.

      Like

      • joanfoster says:

        I agree with many others here that no one should run for the highest office in the land with “sealed records”. The question remains as to why someone might have their records sealed. Often adoptive parents will do that to protect a minor child from the intrusion of birth parent/parents. Is it possible that Ted is not the natural born son of his parents? AdopTED???

        Like

        • KBR says:

          I haven’t seen his parent’s marriage certificate have you? Sometimes that was done to protect a child from illegitimacy scandals. When did they really get married?

          Like

  26. Notmeagain says:

    Cruz is an excellent example of the lawyer joke:
    If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
    If the facts are not on your side, argue the law.
    If neither facts nor law are on your side, pound the table.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. ssupsky says:

    Ted Cruz, quite the guy actually. He fought the SCOTUS and won to endear more to him it seems. Lots of good things to hear about the guy, from the past, the past apparently shrouded in mystery. Sealed records, lying, trashing, has a cult following.

    Why would one want to have this person as a leader?

    He is a sellout and a fake.

    Judas.

    Like

  28. Liked by 1 person

  29. Vladtheimp says:

    I think on the issue of Donald J. Trump many writers and commenters here have gone batsh!t crazy.

    7 years ago we elected a President based on his empty promises as a candidate, ignoring his history of hard-left positions and his reflection of Chicago values.

    Now many here are lobbying for electing another man based on his promises, while ignoring his previous non-conservative positions and his reflection of New York values – including, without limitation, his prior ambiguous statements on amnesty; his support of socialized single-payer health insurance; his support for a 14% tax on wealthy citizens; his campaign contributions to Harry Reid, Rahm Emmanuel, Charlie Rangel, Charles Schumer, Anthony Weiner, and Hillary Clinton – which even he identifies as participation in pay or play crony Capitalism on behalf of his multi-billion dollar businesses; and his vigorous support of the Supreme Court Kelo decision permitting the Government to take the private property of one citizen and give it to another citizen in the interest of producing a use of the land favored by the Government.

    Perhaps most suspect of all, just this month in an effort to raise doubts about the eligibility of Ted Cruz, Trump cited the newly flip-flopped opinion of one of the most left-wing law professors in the country – Lawrence Tribe.

    The next President will likely choose at least 2 and possibly 3 Supreme Court Justices who will sit on the Court for life. Others may be willing to ignore Trump’s less than conservative history and his current choice of the source for a legal opinion, or in the alternative rely on the GOPe to ensure only qualified, conservative Justices will be seated on the Court – but that is a reach too far for me. Regardless of people’s problems with alleged transgressions of Ted Cruz, he is the only candidate from either party I trust to appoint a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court.

    In my view Trump, from his history and his promises, is likely to govern as authoritarian as Obama, expanding the imperial Executive and the power of the Federal Government at the expense of the sovereign states. On the other hand, he may show the skills he touted as the world’s greatest deal maker. Neither, I submit, is something that is likely to turn out well for true supporters of our Constitutional Republic.

    Like

    • Jack Long says:

      If you had a screen name other than VladthePIMP I probably would have read what you wrote.

      Like

    • KBR says:

      Vlad. Read more articles here. You will see it is easy to go from one article to another on the same subject by the subject links provided and underlined under the article. Once you have read at least five articles here entitled Cruz, and at least ten about Donald Trump, AND you have followed the links therein to reassure yourself that the article doesn’t just express opinions but backs up with facts, come back and post again.

      We do read and we do welcome new posts. But not one link did you provide to prove a single point you tried to get us to accept. We are used to reading and checking the sources out for ourselves here.

      Which is why 99% of readers here will not give your biased opinion, backed up by nothing, the time of day.

      Now don’t bother to link to the pro Cruz stuff, link to actual news events. And remember I said READ HERE FIRST. Otherwise you aren’t worth debating.

      Liked by 1 person

    • CHX says:

      Lawrence Tribe was Cruz’s law professor – doesn’t help Cruz pointing out how Liberal his law professor was either. When did Cruz become a great stars-and-stripes covered American patriot again? Was it in Calgary, Canada were he was born and spent a few years? Was it at university, where he was lectured by far-left law professors in the halls of the Liberal movement’s agenda factory – Ivy-League schools? Did his fellow blue-blood, upper-class, ivy-league students and professors impress intense US nationalism and flag-waving sentiments on Cruz?

      And why did a constitutional lawyer, who apparently loves the USA in ways ‘foreign’ New Yorkers can’t understand, maintain dual-citizenship. Cruz maintained his Canadian citizenship until a year ago. A constitutional lawyer, how asserts his whole reason for existing is protecting the consititution – didn’t get around to renouncing a citizenship that rendered him SUBJECT to the QUEEN OF ENGLAND, and her successors?

      Do you find it odd that Mr 100% conservative rating, captain America Cruz, was a dual citizen of Canada – which made him the subject of a Constitutional Monarchy ruled by unelected European monarchs? Do you what the constitution was designed to prevent against?

      God save the Queen, eh.

      Liked by 1 person

  30. Zzschnops says:

    It seems to me that teddies is not serious about illegal immigrants or he would have deported himself as soon as he found out he was a canuk

    Like

  31. J Maggie says:

    Trump has changed now from the O’Reilly interview. About the illegals we have here. Now he says all must be deported. That is the lawful answer. It would be unlawful to let someone stay because they were more productive than others. Our law does not allow for that. There is no case by case basis. If you are here illegally you are breaking the law and the only way to stop you from continuing to break the law is to deport you. So this bothers me that Trump had this stance of a case by case basis. And O’Reilly asked a good question because we need to know Trump’s answer which was wrong but O’Reilly seemed to think it was ok which it wasn’t.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s