Ted Cruz Positions on “Anchor Babies” and “Birthright Citizenship”…

Important to note, before these video’s surfaced Mark Levin was saying there is no such constitutional right as “birthright citizenship”.  However, given the contrarian position of his candidate, perhaps someone could ask Levin now – he’s probably evolved too.

Senator Ted Cruz entire campaign, much like the credibility of Mark Levin, is built around his claim as “the most consistent conservative”.

The topic is “birthright citizenship”:

Here’s Ted Cruz in August of 2015:

Here’s Mark Levin, also August of 2015:

ps. Bain Capitol (Remember Mitt Romney) owns Clear Channel Communication and iHeartMedia:

Light Bulb[…] Programs that appear on many iHeartMedia talk stations include the Glenn Beck Program (Beck having gotten his talk show start at iHeartMedia (then Clear Channel) owned WFLA (AM) in Tampa), The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, America Now with Meghan McCain and Coast to Coast AMwith George Noory, all of which are affiliated with Premiere Radio Networks in some fashion.

The Mark Levin Show and The Dave Ramsey Show are non-Premiere shows who air on many (if not most) iHeartMedia stations, as did The Savage Nation prior to its ending in September 2012. Limbaugh is almost universally carried on iHeartMedia stations in markets where the company has a news talk station, including recently New York City: WOR was acquired in 2013 by Clear Channel and began carrying Limbaugh’s program in 2014 following a long relationship with now-Cumulus Media-owned WABC.

In markets where iHeartMedia-owned news talk stations have not been profitable (such as Boston and Atlanta), iHeartMedia has chosen to sell shows such as Limbaugh and Coast to Coast AM to their rivals and change the stations to other formats. (link)

This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, Election 2016, media bias, Notorious Liars, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to Ted Cruz Positions on “Anchor Babies” and “Birthright Citizenship”…

  1. Linda says:

    Wow! Clips of those would make a good ad.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Backspin says:

    As Savages show ended , and LeVeeNs began , I could not shake the image of Levin as a 1950’s Huge head alien with a throbbing vein about to burst . A lot of that going around I suspect.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Scoob says:

    Uh, Levin has been consistent on this issue and not taken contrary positions for what I have seen. Cruz has evidently evolved, but Levin has a position similar to Trump.

    So what is your point about Levin other then he is a “closet” Cruz supporter?

    Like

    • No, he is an open Cruz supporter. Nothing closet about it.

      Liked by 16 people

    • Bart Manson ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗ says:

      No closet. His stepson works for Ted Cruz. It’s why for weeks he’s been bashing Trump and pushing Cruz.

      And he didn’t bother disclosing his family ties to Ted Cruz for months.

      Liked by 10 people

      • Pete V says:

        The Cruz campaign is full of nepotism. Like Cruz not disclosing a loand he got from Goldman… Where his wife works and is now a Managing Director.
        (Was promoted 9 days after he made it into the Senate partly thanks to Goldman’s hidden dirty money.)

        And not disclosing big loans is lying to the voters. I think it’s obvious that there’s a pattern.

        Liked by 9 people

        • Director says:

          The Cruz Cartel.

          Running votes and cash for favors.

          Liked by 1 person

          • upaces88 says:

            I have been blasted soooo many times when I’d upload just a paragraph of what Cruz was doing OR not doing about the Illegals. I am in Texas…My Lord! The Illegals here buy TWO new cars, a new house, then wants Texas to give them food stamps, free rent once a year; pay their utilities…so???what is it they pay for? Their car payment?!!

            .

            Liked by 9 people

            • Angela Moore says:

              On the eve of a downturn in the economy, people stop buying unnecessary things and begin to horde cash. Bad for the Obama’s economy, but wise for them. However, since the illegals drop an anchor and suddenly get tons of free $h_+ like welfare and charity, astonishingly enough, they can work a few jobs off the books, get an ITIN mortgage with private monies by qualifying with the incomes of all adults under that one roof, and still have lots of $$$ to buy new SUVs and trucks. This is the “why” of why they’re here. In many counties in this country, the feds have stepped up foreclosures on black families, so the illegals can move in. This cycle will be the death of us, if not stopped. Between the personal and mortgage loans made under such shaky conditions, we should start planning for the next 2008-ish collapse.

              Like

          • Mike says:

            I wonder what’s going to happen to Levin, Beck and all the other bloggers and pundits when Ted Cruz’s campaign falls down and goes boom?

            Like

            • I don’t think Cruz will flame out. I do think he will end up Veep. Don’t laugh!! Trump will NEVER be anyone’s second banana, and Cruz will have a lot better chance running for Prez in 2024 succeeding Trump than right now. Besides, I suspect Michele Obama is going to try for a 2024 run–“First woman and first Black Woman president, whee!” Never mind that barry is THE WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME, Democrats work off emotion first reason–never.

              Like

      • Scoob says:

        That is why “closet” is surrounded by quotes. Levin hasn’t declared who he supports, and says that he hasn’t, but it is obvious who he does support.

        Liked by 3 people

      • jimbob says:

        No closet. His stepson works for Ted Cruz.

        No he doesn’t. He doesn’t have a stepson. He may have a stepson in the future should he and his fiance’ get married, but who cares? The idea that he supports Cruz because of this kid is pretty stupid. He was a big Cruz supporter years ago when he was still married to his wife.

        Like

        • wanthetruth says:

          Which is why if he had integrity he would have revealed the connection once known, and it would have been less of an issue. It’s not the connection, per se, it’s the deception. Full disclaimer, “I’m not endorsing any candidate, but…” There’s also that he’s kept the fact of his divorce very quiet, when he’s discussed his wife/marriage on his show previously. Perhaps this is why he didn’t mention a “fiancée” or her son. Doubly deceptive in that case. If you think it’s nobody’s business, that may be partly true, but a public figure relying on his public’s trust in part for his livelihood does owe his public something more than an everyday person.

          Liked by 1 person

    • knotpeesea says:

      i happen to like him but his full on support of cruz and how he treats trump supporters like he handles leftist’s that call in, is really pissing me off. he went from a conservative talk show host to full on propoganda for cruz. mark has been the one that has preached about how we need to stop supporting losers from the republican establishment and yet he backs a loser in cruz. if he wins the nomination he will not win the general at all. anyways we get a winner and someone who can win the general in a major landslide, and levin backs a loser, its amazing to me- i swear the whole world is still continuing to turn upside down i tell ya

      Liked by 7 people

      • archer52 says:

        Kind of like this site right?

        Everybody here has gone bat poop crazy for Trump. It is one thing to back a guy, it is another thing to back a guy blindly.

        We make fun of HRC supporters wondering why in the world anyone would back her now, and then when Trump makes a mistake we just look the other way.

        When Carson starts talking about Pyramids his people look the other way.

        Cruz screws up he’s the monster to us. But I’m sure HIS people look the other way.

        Human nature I guess, but it drives me- and others- nuts!

        What is the warning we keep hearing. Just because we disagree doesn’t make us enemies or idiots or traitors or fools or morons. That’s just too easy.

        Here’s a thought, call me crazy but, Make them ALL accountable. And remember who the real bad guys are- which by the way Levin has a generation behind him of exposing them.

        I don’t dislike Trump but I am an A personality. Spent a lifetime handling bad shit bad people did. When the call came out I ran TO the problem, I didn’t whine or complain or sue or twitter or belly ache or tell whoppers or frankly change that many positions. So Trump drives me nuts when he does!

        I keep waiting from him to drop his persona and be the serious decent guy I keep hearing about. People that know him say he is patriotic, thoughtful, serious, smart, decent, and listens. Give me some of that and I’m behind the guy. If he doesn’t, count me out.

        I want stable, smart, steady hands at the tiller. Nobody will be perfect.

        After all, this is OUR future- the future for my kids, your kids, everybody’s kids. Not a toy, not a TV show. And certainly not the goal on someone’s bucket list.

        I’m hoping I see more of the good Trump after he wins NH and SC and realizes that he might actually BE President.

        Like

        • How do you know that many of us haven’t contacted Trump privately about things we didn’t like? I have several times, in private, on twitter. One of the things that really bothered me was that he defend a woman’s right to wear a burka. I was livid and let him know primate mail via twitter and not heard him bring it up again.

          http://www.weaselzippers.us/237798-trump-defends-forcing-women-to-wear-the-burqa-says-they-may-prefer-it-because-they-dont-like-make-up/

          Liked by 1 person

        • knotpeesea says:

          not hard to find your evidence on the internet especially this site to find what your looking for in trump, good luck to you and if you don’t find nything in your search i guess there is no hope for you. i agree with some of your post but we don’t blindly follow trump, its just that his negatives are nothing compared to all the other candidates on both sides and his positives are one thousand times better than all others running and two things that he has got that no one has which is a) he is not a slimmy dirty politician and b) he is a proven winner who loves his country. good day

          Liked by 8 people

        • Mike says:

          I don’t get the whining angle. as it pertains to Trump called Cruz out for fraud. Yet he is having a “Trumpertantrum.” Good grief ,that’s childish. A giggly little gotcha. It’s something one of Cruz’s consultant’s wrote for him to say, I’m sure. “Whining” for calling out Fraud? calling out Fraud is an an admirable thing in my book.

          I agree Trump is bombastic and over the top. I’;ll also say that his supporters are probably among the the most war-like people on the planet and Ted Cruz is getting a taste of that now.

          But good grief look at all the things that are flushing to the surface. Look at all the dirt. Can you see how Trump is at least doing good things. Trump and frankly, Bernie Sanders, too, are doing good things by being outsiders and showing everyone just how rotten DC is.

          Liked by 1 person

          • sixgeese says:

            It is not whining; it is highlighting extremely sleazy behavior. Maybe some voters with a modicum of a sense of fairness will understand that such underhanded election tactics should not be tolerated, and will vote accordingly in the forthcoming primaries.

            Like

          • sixgeese says:

            I should have been a little more explicit. I agree with you that Trump is right in dwelling on the election fraud perpetrated the Cruz camp.

            Liked by 1 person

            • sixgeese says:

              I meant “by the Cruz camp.”

              Liked by 1 person

            • archer52 says:

              There is a difference between Trump’s “Fraud” proclamation and politics. As I have explained in detail before.

              Where Trump falls into whiny is when he wants to sue, or complain that he didn’t get treated fair. Or wants a “do-over”.

              Jeez… if he’s President and someone in the world bests him at foreign affairs or trade, is he going to sue them or demand a “do-over”?

              This is politics. Nobody is going to get treated fair. In the world game of politics, I can guarantee you nobody is going to play fair, it will be far worse.

              It’s like playing Rugby and whining that everybody is tackling you when you pick up the ball!

              That’s my only personality complaint with him, his instinctive reaction to “sue someone” or look for some unfairness IF he doesn’t win. He got beat, soundly, and now he admits the reason was he didn’t take the Iowa election serious enough. He thought celebrity would put him over the top. I think it really did take him by surprise.

              Good. Learn from your mistake, move on, don’t complain, and don’t make the same mistake again.

              Like

        • Don’t assume for me or my kids, you haven’t earned it. And to compare Hillary to Trump is like comparing an alpha-male with a lesbo warrior, two different tribes. Trump hasn’t spilled blood to get there. Hillary, tainted with phony suicides, 4 ignored in Benghazi, and thousands dead in a stupid Libyan bombing, which help create leftovers that rump through Europe all expedited so Hillary could get warrior credentials in her Presidential bid. You make an analogy that would even fail Common Core.
          Carson’s people didn’t look the other way; it was a very public laugh. You tell me, why do you think the Pyramids were built? Here’s a hint, if you think to store dead people with grain seeds, nope that was just a perk, explain the pyramid’s purpose in one word.
          Levin use to pass information with his belches, now he just passes loud gas. You say you don’t whine and complain, as you whine and complain. If you want to wait until after Trump wins NH and SC, you are a camp follower, not a fighter, so sit in your tent and quietly meditate, you’ll know when it is safe to come out.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Crystal says:

            Actually, it was more like 40 or so ignored in Benghazi. She was willing to flush them all down the drain to save her future political aspirations and Obozo’s reelection chances. As tragic as it was that 4 died, others were injured or permanently maimed while she was busy helping formulate some half-assed excuse to save her career.

            Liked by 1 person

        • varsityward says:

          Do you know Archer53?

          Like

        • Outstanding post. In this most crucial of all elections in our dear Republic’s brief history, dispassionate analysis is necessary.

          Like

        • Outstanding post. Dispassionate analysis is sorely needed in this most crucial election in our dear Republic’s short history.

          Like

          • KBR says:

            Wow, dapperinhilo, took near an hour and a half to hatch your egg picture into a photograph, but the comment remains the same word for word. Could have used 30 seconds to rephrase it for something less bot-sounding.

            I know you are applying it to different posts, but it is too reminiscent of bots when you paste the same words time after time.

            Like

            • davedecleenehawaii says:

              Well, no, I am a Trump supporter and an enthusiastic supporter of Sundance and his site. And I just looked up bot, so now I know it means “internet robot.” The post was my absolutely very first, after reading this site daily since August when I discovered it. I have shared information from this site far and wide. Sundance has helped me to see the battle lines with more clarity than any other political analyst. And I have been to Twitter only a few times, and not familiar with it. When I first posted, I couldn’t find the post here, so I did it again later. To the point of my post in support of Archer, I find the emotionalism that paints the war between the Cruz supporters and the Trump supporters wearisome and counterproductive.

              Like

        • BibleBullet says:

          OK, so when Trump calls out Cruz over his conduct in Iowa, it’s whining. But when Cruz calls McConnell a liar for his conduct, it’s standing up for America. Got it.

          Liked by 3 people

        • cozette says:

          You need to go to his site donaldjtrump.com. You Tube video interviews with him. The 1988 interview with Oprah is interesting because he shows how consistent he’s been on the key issues. Trump is fighting for all of us. The global billionaies who control media and bothe DNC and GOP are all against him. He has to make them afraid to attack him. In the scheme of the world he’s a little guy fighting against the monssters of the world who are close to taking America down. He’s the only tough guy alpha running. The rest will be business as usual. Just remember he needs to make his attackers afraid of exposure. The Koch brothrs actually said they weren’t taking Trump on for fear of retaliation. It’s a strategy.

          Like

        • cozette says:

          Trump is going up every fat cat globalist in the world. He has to make them afraid. The Kochs actually said they are afraid. Good. Anyway, it’s a strategy that’s working. You Tube Trump interviews going back to 1988. You’ll be impressed.

          Like

    • Levin is lawless when it comes to natural born citizenship which is clearly defined already in the Constitution.

      In any case, he is an anger and frustration peddler, with no answers nor solutions. He sits in a room for hours a day screaming and manifesting several different personalities and emotions using a voice that was not made for radio. Those in the business refer to this as a “radio voice,” which Levin clearly doesn’t have.

      Healthy people with a sound mind who enjoy harmony cannot listen to Mark Levin. If he is found enjoyable there’s something else happening there, perhaps some kind of strange codependent relationship people find therapeutic. Like listening to angry loud punk rock music to find relief in letting others manifest angst. The difference being the latter is understandably of youth. I find Mark Levin to be a disgrace and an angry old CROW!

      Liked by 7 people

  4. IMO says:

    nepotism -favoritism shown to members of one’s family rather than of merit.
    In other words they are all connected and controlled. This is why we no longer watch msm or listen to talk radio cause they spew propaganda.

    Like

    • Backspin says:

      Or in short , most of the media is ( actually ) married to folks in the beltway.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Trump is putting his family up for a dynasty bid and as long as they pro American they’re better then the Bushes. Old man Bush when head of CIA pushed heroin onto the burning ghettos, then coke onto the middle class; trying to salvage his concept of the American way of life, but ended up chained to Bill Clinton’s ambition to protect his misadventures.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sentient says:

        That was good. Cruz is a vile person. And for any Cruzbots here, he cannot win. He only got 27% in Iowa because the GOP caucus goers were 64% evangelicals. Not replicatable. The only purpose Cruz serves is to thwart Trump’s mutiny so that Rubio can be handed the nomination at a brokerered convention. Rubio = open borders forever, TPP and arming Sunni jihadis to depose Assad (and potentially fight against Russia). Rubio’s one borders and pathway to citizenship will doom conservatives for decades. Thanks Cruzbots, you morons.

        Liked by 9 people

        • No. Cruz got 27% from the election tampering. In reality he got somewhere in the early twenties from evangelicals. The missing percentage were Carson voters, could be even up to 6% he stole.

          What Cruz (meaning him and his team) did was remove a candidate from the ballot all together. He didn’t just say to not vote Carson and vote for him, he told them Carson wasn’t even an option PLUS to vote for him.

          The fact is that Trump won the most votes and Cruz stole the election by way of election fraud.

          Liked by 7 people

        • Rubio, too, is twice ineligible.
          That’s why he’s such a docile tool of the Jebbush.

          Like

      • jackphatz says:

        Funny, funny stuff here. Rove was crying with O’Reilly last night about this too. Rove doesn’t care one wit about Carson or Cruz other then Cruz might too popular, making Rubio’s chances harder. Now, all thee people blasting Trump for the righteous outrage regarding this, are they going to acknowledge he was right? LOL NO!

        Liked by 3 people

      • mathewsjw says:

        Establishment GOP supporter Greta AND Establishment GOP Rove support Trump… Queasy feeling

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jason says:

      nice she’s ‘adjusted’ her view on this, just yesterday she and her other guest were mocking Trump for making an issue of this very thing. Guess her producers decided to change the script a bit for today’s programming…

      Liked by 6 people

    • Brent says:

      Can’t get over her comment about how (paraphrased) if she were Cruz, she’d be all over whoever sent out this latest press release. Why would he?! If anything, he’ll give them a bonus. Is she really that naïve?

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Martin says:

    I am, Trump:

    Liked by 4 people

  6. KenH says:

    Trump needs to hit Cruz with things like this rather than focusing on his being born in Canada. Trump needs to emphasize that the two Cubans will be similar to Obama in their approach to mass immigration contrary to what they say on the campaign trail. A vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for the third world takeover of America via illegal and “legal” immigration.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Martin says:

      Cruz is not eligible to run so Trump is right to keep bringing it up. Everything else, I agree with you.

      Liked by 8 people

    • tz says:

      Do not regret the shotgun has too few or the wrong type of shot – if even one hits, the target is wounded, a few more and it is dead.
      Be calculating, even if cube roots are difficult.
      I’ve heard of a conservative, a cuckservative, but not a cruzervative – I assume such is a liberal who doesn’t want to let someone take a break to change clothes.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Director says:

      Oh yes. Canada is nice white folk.

      Cruz will side with his Hombres, Hermanos and Mamasitas.

      Like

    • stella says:

      This is an issue that is hard to explain in a sound bite, and since Cruz has an “explanation”, it won’t faze his followers. Believe me, I’ve tried on this one, and they refuse to be moved.

      Liked by 2 people

      • 7delta says:

        After years of reading old documents, my sound bite on the eligibility issue is “jurisdiction.” No country has any natural rights of sovereignty regarding anything existing within, or originating within, the sovereign jurisdiction of another country. Since neither the nature of the sovereign state nor the nature of parental rights of a child born abroad can provide political association through an act of nature, an artificial construct must create a legal pathway of recognition to make the child part of the parents’ political community, with the same rights and privileges “as” a natural born citizen (a citizen originating within U.S. jurisdiction to parents solely “under the jurisdiction thereof.”) The political construct is called naturalization.

        There is no “right” to be president. It’s a job qualification. It does not discriminate nor infringe on any citizens’ rights, regardless of how citizenship was acquired. Equal rights and application of the law.

        The same concept applies to children born on the soil to non-citizen parents. “Jurisdiction” over alien parents is civil (existing only during the time the aliens are on U.S. soil), not political, and cannot negate the political bonds of the parents with the country where they are citizens, unless and until the parents choose to naturalize and complete the process. Anchor babies are citizens because of a legal construct that artificially creates a political bond between the child and the state (and the misapplication of the 14th Amendment.)

        Pare that down to “a conflict between natural and political jurisdiction.”

        Like

        • stella says:

          As I said, this is difficult to explain in a sound bite, and Cruz supporters won’t care, because he has “explained”. Look at how many words it took for you to explain your position on the subject.

          Like

  7. tz says:

    Cruz consistently flip-flops.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. So, if Trump brings out the weird past of Rubio going into the south, does it help or hurt Rubio?

    Like

    • flawesttexas says:

      Hurts.

      Rubio has a two fold problem with his switch hitting:

      Conservative GOP will not vote for a gay GOP candidate, period. You think Cruz supporters will vote for a gay candidate?

      Moderates and independents will be turned off by the duplicity and dishonesty with Rubio

      Liked by 2 people

    • Pete V says:

      If Rubio’s past can’t be proven and there is no real evidence, then Trump has to be careful. Bringing it up would make him look deluded and desperate. The story should rather be spread by his supporters and he should be silent about it, relying on the rumor having a life of its own. What he can do is jokingly saying that there’s a rumor. He would point people to it without suggesting that it’s true.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Pete V says:

        PS: Rubio tries to appeal to people who are very religious, so it could really hurt him if enough people have heard the story and think it could be true. It would also make Ruibo feel uneasy speaking in public because people would listen to him wonderhing whether he is gay.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, I agree all he has to do is get people talking about it to do damage.

        Like

      • Serpentor says:

        We need to make some changes or at least have a discussion about anchor babies in the United States. Does anyone really think Rubio could be objective in such a matter?

        Like

      • KBR says:

        Insofar as Rubio’s past, I think it would be better to bring up his first job: working for a drug lord doing “odd jobs.” (Which is a fact.) “When I was 17 I was at military school doing well in school, when Rubio was 17 he was working for a family member who was a cocaine distributor and doing badly in school. The family member served time for it, so it’s true. Rubio admits working for him says he was doing odd jobs.”

        (Cocaine pushers and their former employees are not acceptable candidates for Pres.)

        He can also hit him with being roommates with a porno-producer (without mentioning gay.) He can hit him with being in the car with this guy in a park where drug deals are said to go down. “Was he still working with the cocaine cartel by then, or what?” (No gay-bashing necessary, people will make the association themselves)

        And then buying a speedboat when he was supposedly strapped for (his own) cash. “Now why would he need a speedboat so badly when he was strapped for cash in Miami, was he hoping to earn extra money using his boat? I haven’t seen anything about him being a commercial fisherman, so it looks bad.” Leading to his poor spending and poor money management, using money not his own (Fla.’s $).

        Leading to his becoming a JBush protege…goes to JBush’s lack of sense in ” backing a cocaine-dealer-connected guy even though JBush’s own kid became a coke-addict. Bush’s bad judgement or else something’s shady there, so sad for his daughter, so sad.”(Mentor/mentee 2-birds w 1stone hit)

        This could be a leading point right into immigration, because Trump wants to stop drugs from crossing our borders.

        Which could segue right into the immigration of Rubio’s Cuban parentage, and that they were not citizens when Rubio was born. Anchor baby, Cuban citizens parents. And then on to Rubio’s open borders mandates, gang of 8, etc. “If you want amnesty for people who broke our laws and came here illegally, if you want a weak candidate, he or Bush are the same.”

        Like

  9. Director says:

    Stick a Turban on Levin and you have an Ottoman Effendi. He sits around eating and belching while everyone else pushes and pulls for a living.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Frank O'Pinion says:

    Bottom line on elihibility: Make it whatever you want it to be to fit your needs.
    From a poster that is right-on-target.
    To wit:
    The reason the meaning of natural born citizen has been tortured into meaning virtually anyone is because this discussion is taking place after the commission of a crime, “too big to prosecute”, by a lot of rich, powerful, and influential people.

    Once Congress allowed and assisted the ineligible, identity fraud con-artist Barack Hussein Obama to usurp the presidency there was no one complicit in Obama’s successful takeover of America’s highest office, and her military, who was not going to fight, with everything in them to insure Barry remains officially a legitimate president. Anything else subjects the complicit to charges of treason, many at the highest possible level, for literally giving America’s government and her military to the enemy. No amount of history, common sense or anything else will ever get an admission from the media, Congress or the others involved that they were complicit in, as a minimum, misprision of felony/treason for their part in the biggest hoax in history.

    Obama must be protected from the truth about him being fully revealed and acted on. When the regime owns the courts, Congress, and the media, that job becomes doable, no matter how compelling or plentiful evidence to the contrary may be. 

    Supporting and defending as many ineligible presidential candidates (such as Jindal, Rubio, and Cruz) as possible is a way of protecting Obama’s false eligibility, as ineligible candidates are molded into natural born citizens by those who want the Obama fraud to just fade away, and their paid assistants. Every ineligible candidate accepted as, “eligible”, no matter what it takes for that to happen, helps them reach their goal.

    Those complicit believe their personal freedom could depend on continuing the charade of legitimacy they have surrounded Obama with, both by their actions, and inaction.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Concerned Virginian says:

      “Those complicit believe their personal freedom could depend upon continuing the charade of legitimacy…”
      I agree, and add this: their personal freedom TO LIVE, also, perhaps?
      That said, I think that a winning argument may be made via the reasoning of Vattel and of English Common Law that the child inherits his/her claim to “natural born” from the father. Following this reasoning, neither Ted Cruz, nor Marco Rubio, nor Bobby Jindal are/were eligible to run or to serve as President or Vice-President; as is the case with Barack Obama. Donald Trump, whose mother was born in Scotland, married an American citizen: therefore, following the same reasoning, Donald Trump is “natural born” and as such is eligible. I say this with the realization that Ted Cruz was also not born on United States soil. Nobody is truly sure about Barack Obama in the same issue.

      Like

      • singtune says:

        Donald Trump’s Mom was Naturalized in 1942 & Donald was Born in 1946 so yes is completely “Natural Born”~! But If Vattel is Correct, & I believe he is~~ even if Obama was born in the USA & his Mon was a Citizen~~! His DAD was NOT so he would NOT be a Natural Born Citizen~! It is from the Father that the Child became Natural Born & after Women were able to Vote it became 2 parents must be Citizens~!

        If a Republican Became President & was Not Natural Born~~it would SEEM to VALIDATE Obama~!

        Liked by 4 people

        • Serpentor says:

          Not only was his mom a citizen and legal, but Trump is a third generation American born right here in the USA. The argument has zero similarity.

          Like

    • Ono says:

      Capital punishment to a politician:

      With enough Capitol there will not be any punishment , and because I wasn’t punished then the law I broke no longer applies to anyone.

      Like

    • Winston Churchill is also a natural born American citizen by this definition. “Born to Lord Randolph Churchill, a British statesman from an established English family, and his mother, Jeanette ‘Jennie’ Jerome, an independent-minded New York socialite.” -biography.com
      Same circumstances as Cruz.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Kathy says:

      Maybe Queen Nor’s son could be president here and King in Jordan at the same time frame to save having an ambassador either place. Then my friend whose mom is American and father Peruvian could be our next international president though he was born in Peru. Then One of he Beckmann children , then whoever else whose parents are foreign but kids were born here. This is absolutely rediculous and the GOPe knows it and any member of the party who supports this policy with money is nothing short of a traitor to,all people who still believe in the constitution , ignorant of our history or not!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Burnt Toast says:

      The ‘natural’ in ‘natural born citizen’ means IAW current law to most anyone who delves into what the law says.

      If you went back a few years before Obama was a nationally recognized name and asked what was a ‘natural born citizen’ they’d say both parents US citizens (alone) and born in the US.

      Used to be the simple definition of ‘natural law’ was not man-made law. For example, gravity, it’s not just a good idea…

      It has gotten so bad I have seen legalist arguments that Cruz is a ‘native’ citizen because his mother was.

      Like

      • Gail Combs says:

        Cruz does not even get the mother was an America…

        Sen. Ted Cruz’s birth certificate shows he was born in Calgary Canada in 1970. At that time Canada DID NOT have dual citizenship. Sen. Ted Cruz only gave up his Canadian dual citizenship on May 14, 2014 roughly 9 months after he learned he wasn’t only an American. Ted Cruz, like Obummer has sealed his records.

        Ted Cruz’s Mother Was On Official List Of Canadian Citizens Eligible To Vote [and so was his father] (1974)

        Canada and Dual Citizenship
        “Prior to 1947 and the introduction of the first Citizenship Act, there was legally no such thing as Canadian citizenship. Both native-born and naturalized citizens were British subjects. In 1977, the current Citizenship Act came into force, making extensive changes to the law. … The Act also provided that Canadians could hold dual citizenship, reversing the previous situation in which citizenship was lost upon the acquisition of the citizenship of another country.”
        http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm

        From WIKI ( the US government pulled their page) the U.S. government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy

        Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

        Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

        Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

        Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” ”
        http://intellectualconservative.com/the-end-of-the-american-presidency/

        And even funnier Cruz wrote the forward for the book “US Constitution For Dummies” The book reveals Cruz is not eligible as natural born citizen per the US Supreme Court case United States vs Wong Kim Ark 1898,
        “…In 1802, all former acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were reenacted in this form:
        ….Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

        [Same wording statute of February 10, 1855]
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

        Since his Father was NOT in residence in the United States and Cruz was born in Canada and his parents were registered as Canadian citizens when dual citizenship was NOT allowed, perhaps CRUZ and his family should be deported as illegal aliens… (snicker)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Crystal says:

        NBC = Born of 2 US citizen parents (no matter where they were born) and child born on US soil or US territory (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, US military bases and US embassies abroad).

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Frank O'Pinion says:

    Spelling correction.
    My pencils don’t misspell, but my fat fingers do.

    Change: “Bottom line on elihibility: Make it whatever you want it to be to fit your needs.”

    To: “Bottom line on eligibility: Make it whatever you want it to be to fit your needs.”

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Pete V says:

    Cruz and Levin think of the Constitution like the French king thought of his country. “I am the state” – “I am the Constitution”.

    These people think they own the Constitution, that they are the only guys who understand it and that everyone else wants to destroy the Constitution. They have never explained how Rand Paul or Trump would wreck the Constitution.

    They will say that something is constitutional today, and tomorrow it will be unconstitutional. Cruz is an embarrassment to the Republic, and Levin has tanted himself with his ill-judged and apparently bought support for Cruz.

    Liked by 5 people

    • singtune says:

      In a way Pete, I think it is worse~! Because, If Levin & Cruz were Nationalist’s & speaking of the Constitution, like We All do, it would be ONE thing. However, Levin & Cruz are Globalist’s & Are NOT thinking of America, ~ her National Sovereignty or our Constitution the way our Founder’s wrote it~!

      Both Levin & Cruz are Pushing for a “Constitutional Convention” to CHANGE our OWN Constitution for a Document that would Take Away our Freedom & Rights & Replace America,~ with the NAU~! The NAU is the “North American Union” that Removes the BORDERS between the USA~~Canada & Mexico. We would then be like the EU & have no identity, rights or freedom~! {The countries in the EU no longer can defend their individual borders}

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Bart Manson ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗ says:

    Cruz is just proof the establishment has a sense of humor.

    Obama is:
    Harvard educated.
    First term Senator.
    Poor attendance in Senate.
    Considered a “Constitutional scholar”.
    Constantly lectures everyone when he talks .
    Believes he’s smarter than everyone else in the room.
    Zero leadership abilities.
    Career lawyer/politician with no private sector experience.
    Raised by parents and family with zero loyalty to this country.
    Questionable eligibility.
    Records sealed to prevent investigation of said questionable eligibility.
    Sleazeball tactics to win elections.

    The same exact list applies to Cruz.

    The establishment is getting a good chuckle over the fact that so many people who hated Obama for all those reasons, now love Cruz, simply because he has an “R” next to his name and people call him “conservative”.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. dizzymissl says:

    From the National Black Republican Association–NOT happy with Ted. You have to scroll down just a bit to read.

    The Ted Cruz Deception?

    http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-ted-cruz-deception.html

    Liked by 5 people

  15. EJ says:

    I hate to defend the guy, but I don’t hear any inconsistencies.

    2011 he is in constitutional lawyer mode – he is going to defer to the constitution, as he should and ignore policy, which was his point about activist judges. He basically said you are stuck with it.

    Once he begins a career as a Senator, his point in life changes from defender of the constitution to policy maker. At that point in time he may have an opinion about the policy of the laws he used to defend. Totally acceptable.

    I am an attorney. Abortion is the current law of the land. If I was a constitutional attorney, I have to uphold that law (even though I don’t agree with it). If I became a senator – I would try to change the law. I think this is natural progression from attorney to senator. People hate lawyers because they do their job. It’s a weird job.

    Like

    • mark4trump says:

      Huh? I don’t have a problem with Cruz changing positions but to say in 2015 that he was totally arguing against anchor babies in 2011 is lying. Unless he is has serious mental issues.

      Liked by 3 people

      • EJ says:

        Who knows what else was said in 2011. It’s one clip. He certainly didn’t defend it in 2011. Just said that arguments against it were compelling. That is how a lawyer speaks – not a senator who has an actual opinion.

        Like

        • KBR says:

          “This is how a lawyer speaks.” Exactly! Lawyers automatically speak “loopholeze.”

          Which is the WORST thing about Ted Cruz: you cannot trust him not to slither out through the loopholes he builds in to anything he says.

          Besides which, he flat out lies, for example saying Trump loves Obamacare when Trump has clearly said he would end Obamacare. And other lies too.

          And he defends election fraud.

          Like

        • mark4trump says:

          I guess that’s possible — If the clip was made in August 2011 as labeled — wouldn’t that quote be in middle of his Senate Campaign? If he switched positions/or left consititutional lawyer mode — it would have had to have happened very soon after his statements if it were to match what he said in 2015. Not very believable in my opinion.

          Like

    • Melania for 1st Lady says:

      “he is going to defer to the constitution…”

      Birthright citizenship is NOT in the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      The 14th Amendment has something to do with a little thing called THE CIVIL FREAKIN’ WAR. It gave citizenship to freed black slaves. Period. It did NOT grant citizenship to anyone and everyone henceforth born on U.S. soil. As an example, American Indians did not become citizens until 1924, when the subtley named “Indian Citizenship Act” was passed.

      The 14th Amendment was passed in response to the Civil War. 600,000 Americans had just slaughtered each other. THAT was what was being addressed. We just fought a war. The 14th Amendment made black Americans citizens. Got it? People in the 1860s did not say, “Hey, lets pass an amendment so that a Mexican or anyone else who is 9 months pregnant can step a toe over our border, dump a baby, and say ‘Ha ha, got you! Now take care of my baby for 85 years!’ ”

      People such as myself (and Donald Trump) who don’t agree with birthright citizenship are not engaging in “activism”. People such as myself (and Donald Trump) are the ones who ARE defering to the Constitution. Ted Cruz is a weasel who deffered to leftist talking points and now tries to pretend he’s strong on immigration issues because he sees how well Trump is doing and how the American people are responding.

      Liked by 10 people

      • EJ says:

        I see it differently. It seems that he was always against it, but believes it’s there in the constitution (like many attorneys). It’s debatable legally. No one can say otherwise.

        Look I don’t want to argue about him, I don’t like him. But sometimes as a lawyer you see legal rights that you don’t agree with. Acknowledging those instances and defending them doesn’t make that person inconsistent with their opinions. That is what makes the job hard.

        I just hate seeing people jump on nothings because it hurts the credibility of our cause – electing Donald. It give the Cruzbots ammunition against us.

        Like

        • grlangworth says:

          I believe that this is what will be determined by the Supreme Court: If both parents are illegal aliens, then the anchor baby they bring forth in the U.S. is not a U.S. Citizen, according to the U.S. Constitution.

          Like

    • Law of the land doesn’t make it lawful.

      Refer to Nazi Germany.

      Refer to the Spanish and Roman inquisitions.

      If rape became the law of the land would you would uphold it?

      What about incest?

      How about bestiality?
      Right now bestiality is legal in many states, for example TEXAS. Do you really believe we have the right to have sex with animals?

      Liked by 2 people

      • WeeWeed says:

        Cite your sources.

        Like

      • EJ says:

        I don’t follow your point. The law of the land is lawful, by definition. It may not be moral. It may not be the best policy. Going by what your saying, it may be unlawful to do something legal. That makes no sense.

        The original point Rafael made was that arguing or challenging what he interpreted to be the constitutional law is silly. He offered a better solution – closing the boarder, which would eliminate anchor babies and then 99% of the problem ends. This is why we all love Donald – he will just build a wall and be done with it. It is a practical solution. Arguing birthright citizenship in the Supreme Court could come out either way and would take forever.

        Rafael is a sleazy snakey person, but he won 5 Supreme Court cases. I am going to respect his opinion about the constitution. Completely disregarding his opinion is folley and is the stuff of “fanboys” which I hope we are not.

        Like

        • angryduc says:

          The idea that because someone won a case that we should all therefore respect that persons opinion on all others is balderdash. Ted Cruz doesn’t want to go to the S.Ct. for one reason, because it may rule against him. Notice the focus on him, rather than our country. He didn’t file a case against Obama either after he was elected. He didn’t do that because the outcome bore on him.

          Lots of us are lawyers. In fact, you probably can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a couple in here. Rafael Eduardo Cruz is an artful liar. I’m probably not alone in my suspicion he is so due to mental issues. Referring to this guy up as some constitutional genius is dangerous fodder.

          The fact is, his religious belief’s place him on the same ground as the Taliban in my book, with his vision of the future no different than the Muslim caliphate. He is beyond a bigot. Rafael Eduardo Cruz is pathologically dangerous. I’ll tell you this, John Adams and many of our forefathers did not hold his beliefs about the role of religion in our government.

          Liked by 1 person

        • You do very well understand my point.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Beenthere says:

          If civil law works against natural law then moral people are obligated to convince their reps to change that civil law. If their reps disregard this then people have a right to civilly disobey this law.

          Liked by 1 person

        • KBR says:

          Rafael was against closing the border (see TPP, see Teddy bears) before he claimed
          (AFTER the people heard a trumpet sound and followed that enthusiastically)
          the “suddenly more-popular position” to have “always been” in favor of stronger borders.”

          Ted Cruz shifts his position when he sees the people respond to the trumpet’s call.
          Every time.

          Ted Cruz has NO firm position on anything, except “cheat to win.”

          Liked by 1 person

    • Burnt Toast says:

      Lawyers always ‘know’ for a fact what the law says, they have position, right or wrong and debate it as if it is settled.

      Always being disingenuous that ultimately it is just five of nine guys reaching deep into their black dresses in the end.

      Liked by 1 person

    • facebkwallflower says:

      Huh? In the first video he says it is unconstitutional and he knows because he is a proven expert on the Constitution. Then as a senator he says policy needs to change and yet he has a history of saying the constitution protects birthright citizenship which means what? It means he is willing to override the the Constitution.

      And his whole reason for wanting what he believes is against the Constitution is because Donald Trump brought it up and people liked it and he wants on that gravy train.

      And no, he was not in lawyer mode (except for the weaseling) because he was running for senator to be a Constitutional Senator.

      The “mode” logic is compartmentalized thinking, allowing for the benefits of moral living be reaped while living immorally. I think “mode” living is called “two-faced”.

      Yeah, can see the husband coming home and telling me he was in “single mode” so his wild night with the college girls being excepted real well because in the house he is in “family man” mode.

      Like

      • ej says:

        Lawyers are trained to think compartmentalized, that is part why people don’t like them. Again, I actually think his original point in this particular case is the most effective solution (Trump’s solution). Build a wall and we can stop talking about it. I have no opinion on whether Birthright Citizenship is constitutionally protected or not, because I never cared to really look at it. As to policy and campaigning, saying you want to get rid of it (or however you phase it) would be a certain lightning rod to the left, much how we on the right freak out about “gun control.” Let’s just stop illegal immigration (with a big beautiful wall) and then we can avoid the legal argument. We need to pick our battles and I rather solve the problem, rather than argue about who is “correct.”

        Like

  16. The reason I stopped listening to Mark Levin months ago was because he would say the exact same things, like he says at the end of this Hannity video where he calls out the republican Party who have betrayed conservatives who voted for them. Mark even goes on to say, conservatives were lied to by republicans so us conservatives would vote for them to get a majority house and senate.

    Excuse me, but is Mark Levin living on the same planet as the rest of us? Hasn’t his guy Ted Cruz been apart of that same republican party in congress who can’t get anything done other than to vote for Obama to have fast track authority leading to fast tracking America’s trade agreements? There are plenty more other Cruz votes where he voted on the wrong side of conservatism, that’s when he even bothered to show up.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. NJF says:

    The only guy I listen to is Savage, although sometimes I will out on Dennis Prager when WABC has its liberal lineup. Today he had on Nick adams who wrote “Retaking America.”

    A review, from NR no less about the book.

    “Political correctness has a big mouth, and Nick Adams fills it with a well-deserved knuckle sandwich. Retaking America is an unvarnished lo-down from Down Under that encourages the US of A to snap out of it, embrace is frontier spirit, and beat the tar out of the insanity and the real worldwide threat to freedom that the PC jihad poses. Adams once again provides a terrific read that tells the Left in plain and simple Aussie where it can stick its tucker bag.” (National Review)

    This is what i don’t get–aside from the the hypocrisy of NR. Both Adams, & Prager praise Trump for taking a stand in the manner outlined above. They both insist that Trump is the only one willing to do it, yet they refuse to say, “I support him.”

    Is no one beside us vulgarians willing to stand beside Trump and fight back? I keep hearing this same sentiment over and over again….”praise, praise, blah, blah, but of course I don’t support him.” WTH? Its so dang frustrating.

    Did any one catch morning joe today. The segment with Santorum? After giving a 5 minute soliloquy on Gretta last night about Rubio’s values & his electability he could not name one accomplishment of Rubio that makes him worthy of Santorum’s support. It was shameful. He sputtered like a stoned college kid trying to define socialism. Joe Scarborough really hammered him, and it was great.

    Anyway, it’s so disheartening to me that no one will support him.

    Ok, rant over.

    I’ve never listened to Rush bc I don’t think I get his station, and I dropped Levin as soon as I realized he was going to be a raving lunatic shill. And the incestuous relationships just keep getting dirtier and dirtier.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. Daniel says:

    I’m glad there is broad agreement that Rubio is ineligible to run. By the definitions and by the author of that portion of the constitution, Rubio’s parents were not properly under the jurisdiction of the nation when he was born. And specifically, foreign parents means not a citizen. He shouldn’t even be a Senator.

    Cruz was also outside of the jurisdiction at birth because he was Canadian-born. I just don’t see how, according to the reading, either of them qualify.

    And the words “birthright citizenship”? Where did that come from? That’s not a term used in law. And besides that, the term pretty much means “inherited” and historically means inherited from or conferred through the father.

    Liked by 2 people

    • davidfarrar says:

      Daniel, I agree. Birthright citizenship is inherited as a natural right by natural citizens, born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty, without foreign allegiances or attachments.

      Like

    • facebkwallflower says:

      Yes, where did it come from? “Birthright” is inherited, yes? And from a parent, yes? So how can you claim a birthright for something your parent/parents do not have?

      Like

    • ladysforest says:

      As a senator he is fine. I believe his parents naturalized when he was 4 yrs old. He would have been automatically naturalized at that time.

      Like

  19. Coast2Coast says:

    Thought I would tune in 2 fox and watch Meghan Kelly play Juliet in the Rubio, Rubio, where 4 art thou Rubio show, sigh…..

    Like

  20. HellBlazeRaiser says:

    Goldman Sachs is in bed with Bain Capital.

    Like

  21. mazziflol says:

    Liked by 5 people

  22. georgiafl says:

    Well, if anyone wants a good laugh – read this from David Spuria:
    Trump Forcing Conservative Media to Defend a Liar and a Thief.

    “First, scaring granny. A bright orange letter arrives in grandma’s mailbox telling her she’s a reprobate because she hasn’t voted lately. She has a failing grade and the only way to not be hauled off in a paddy wagon is for her to put her needle point down and go vote for Ted Cruz. This will fix everything and life will go on as normal for her.”

    Liked by 5 people

    • It also mentions, by name, eight of the person’s neighbors and they will be notified of the dismal voting record. It sets out to shame the person.

      Like

    • redlegleader68 says:

      This guy can really write! Like this, FTA: “Rush Limbaugh solved his Cruz problem by endorsing Rubio on Tuesday. He’s a full throated conservative! Whatever that means. He’s actually a full of crap, stick your fingers down your throat amnesty establishment hack!”

      Like

  23. jimbob says:

    Important to note, before these video’s surfaced Mark Levin was saying there is no such constitutional right as “birthright citizenship”.

    No he wasn’t. What he said was there’s no birthright citizenship for illegal aliens in this country illegally. He never said there is no such thing as birthright citizenship at all. Of course there is. That’s how most citizens(excluding illegals) in this country acquired their citizenship

    Like

  24. davidfarrar says:

    Birthright citizenship, as a natural right, is only acquired by natural U.S. citizens, born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty, with no foreign allegiances or attachments.

    Like

    • Dick Albright says:

      Agreed. And…to eliminate alien compromise to the CINC, Presidents, VP’s and HS Speakers must be “Natural Born” under US Jurisdiction of US:
      nat•u•ral
      ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
      adjective: natural
      1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
      2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
      And…..
      http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm
      Important to read further > Summarizing:
      1. To be “natural born” is to be born on a spot of soil somewhere, and that also makes one a citizen, of jus soli countries like the United States, if that soil is part of the dominion of that country, which in U.S. law is referred to as “incorporated” territory, as distinct from a protectorate, leasehold, or other merely “administered” territory.
      2. However, natural born citizenship may be denied to one if (read further) >>>>
      http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

      Like

  25. facebkwallflower says:

    Date of second video in comparison to memo from Party to be “more Trump”??

    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