WATCH: Ted Cruz Shuts Down CNN’s Chris Cuomo Over Dems Blocking Bill to Stop Felons From Buying Guns

Leave a comment

H/T The Gateway Pundit.

Fredo Cuomo is one of the Communist News Network’s village idiots and is a DemocRat waterboy.

Senator Ted Cruz left CNN’s Chris Cuomo looking absolutely stunned as he demanded to know if the host has bothered to ask a Democrat why they filibustered legislation that would prevent criminals from purchasing firearms.

Cruz did not hold back, leaving Cuomo looking like a deer in headlights during the interview which took place on Wednesday morning. He stated that his 2013 bill would have likely prevented the Parkland school shooting.

The Texas Senator tweeted out a portion of the interview on Friday.

One question to ask Democrats who filibustered Grassley-Cruz:

Why did you filibuster legislation that targeted violent criminals and sought to put felons who illegally try to buy firearms in jail?

“Let me ask one quick question. Grassley-Cruz got 52 Senators supporting it. Nine Democrats. The most bipartisan support of any comprehensive bill. But Harry Reid and the Democrats filibustered Grassley-Cruz even though it targeted criminals and could have perhaps prevented these attacks,” Cruz said.

“Have you ever asked a Democrat why did you filibuster Grassley-Cruz, which targeted violent criminals and sought to put felons who illegally try to buy firearms in jail?” Cruz asked a stunned looking Cuomo.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Cruz (R-TX) reintroduced the bill on Tuesday.

“Time and again we’ve seen the disastrous results of failures to fully employ the national background checks system. A number of recent mass shootings could have been prevented by proper execution of the existing system. Senator Cruz and I are now taking steps to bolster that system and improve its ability to prevent future violence.” Grassley said in a statement about the bill. “When we introduced this legislation in 2013, after the tragedy at Sandy Hook, it received a bipartisan majority vote in the Senate. I’m optimistic in rejoining Senator Cruz in this effort and look forward to the bill’s consideration.”

The bill has the support of outspoken Parkland student Kyle Kashuv.

The Grassley Cruz bill is one I fully support. @marcorubio and @senorrinhatch have a great bill too. I implore all positions to come together and vote this into law. @tedcruz

The bill was first introduced as the “Grassley-Cruz” amendment in 2013, and received a positive vote of 52-48 in the Senate, when Republicans were in the minority, the statement from Grassley’s office explains.

If passed, the legislation would improve the NICS, address mental health concerns relating to the purchase of firearms and bolster alerts to law enforcement. Additionally, it would commission a study on the causes of mass shootings from the National Institute of Justice and National Academy of Sciences and include additional grant resources, which can be used to strengthen school safety and security.

Watch the full interview here:


Trump Used Cruz to Pull Off Unity 

Leave a comment

While Ted Cruz said he could not endorse Donald Trump due to personal attacks on his family.

One thing Little Teddy Cruz has forgotten his pledge to support the GOP nominee was unconditional.

RUSH: There are two overwhelming, inarguable results from this.  Number one, we’re gonna have a ratings bonanza tonight. And number two, we may be seeing the actual first threads of unity build behind Donald Trump because of this.  And it could well be that Trump has pulled off a masterful move letting all this happen.

Source: Trump Used Cruz to Pull Off Unity – The Rush Limbaugh Show

The GOP nomination math: Confusing and complicated

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

My hope is that the Establishment Republicans does not screw the pooch by adopting the  DemocRats          Superdelegates.

As the presidential nomination process heads toward a big April, the twisted math behind picking the next Republican nominee is coming under close scrutiny.

Trump-536The current GOP front runner, Donald Trump, has received most of the votes and delegates in the primaries and caucuses contested so far. Trump has 696 delegates as of March 18th, well ahead of his nearest rival, Ted Cruz, with 424 delegates. That’s led some political observers to say that if Trump’s nomination isn’t inevitable, it is highly likely.

Adding to the confusion is a smaller group of observers who see the possibility of a contested convention in July at Cleveland. Trump needs 1,237 delegates for a first-ballot nomination, and while there are some winner-take-all states coming up, Trump has only taken about 47 percent of possible delegates in the races concluded so far. Using that simple number, these observers think Trump needs to win about 53 percent of the remaining delegates to get that first-ballot nomination.

That is the easy part of the math. Because of the different rules for the remaining Republican primaries and caucuses, there are few clear-cut winner-take-all primaries.

We used the website to look all the primary and caucus rules to get a sense how the voting could progress. There are a lot of variations compared to the Democratic primary system, where the only variables are proportional elections and Super Delegates.

According to the  website, of the 22 states and territories yet to vote for the Republicans, only five have primaries where the one candidate with the most votes in the state automatically gets all the delegates: Arizona, Delaware, Nebraska, New Jersey and South Dakota.

States like Pennsylvania and California, with their huge delegate slates, are considered winner-take-all elections with a catch. In California, there are 53 Congressional districts, each with three votes. The candidate with the most votes within that district gets its three votes. So if Trump wins 25 districts and Cruz wins 25 districts, each gets 75 delegates.

In Pennsylvania, there is a loophole primary, where a proxies for the candidates run in each Congressional district.  But 17 of the state’s 71 delegates go to the winner of the state-wide vote.

And in Trump’s home state, New York, its delegates are part of a winner-take-most process. Of the state’s 95 delegates, 81 are selected in 27 Congressional districts. In each district, if a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, he gets all three votes; if not, the top candidate gets two votes, and second-place finisher gets one vote.

On the surface, it would seem logical that Trump would need to get 53 percent of the popular vote to get 53 percent of its delegates. But using the March 15thIllinois primary as an example, with its loophole, winner-take-all primary rules, Trump took 39 percent of the popular vote but won 78 percent of the delegates. Why? Because Trump swept 10 of the 18 Congressional district races.

Looking at the total remaining delegates remaining, roughly 983 delegates, Trump would need something in the 53-55 percent range to get to the magical 1,237 number. Assuming Trump gets pure winner-take-all states in Arizona and Delaware, and he picks up mandated delegates in Wisconsin, Maryland and Pennsylvania, Trump would be just 405 delegates short of the nomination. And California and its 172 delegates use a format like Illinois that awards all the delegates within each district to one candidate, which favors Trump.

What would hurt Trump could be losses in winner-take-all states New Jersey, Nebraska and South Dakota, and unexpectedly poor showings in the bigger remaining states. Still, in a scenario like that, where Trump gets about 47 percent of delegates, he is short of the nomination by just about 79 delegates. How well Trump will do in a three-candidate contest is another unknown factor.

By April 27, the GOP outcome should be much clearer, since New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut will have voted in the prior week. The primary season concludes on June 7, with 303 delegates at stake in five states, including California and New Jersey. At that point, if Trump hasn’t secured the nomination, his “number to clinch” will be very clear.

And what do the non-political pundits think, like professional betting outfits that offer people a chance to wager on the primary-season outcome? The websiteElection Betting Odds analyzes these “prop bets” from, and it lists Trump as a 70 percent favorite to get the nomination. Other betting sites show similar odds.

An Open Letter to Sen. Marco Rubio

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

USA – -( When I read this morning that Marco Rubio had said that Ted Cruz is the only conservative left in the Republican presidential primary race, it reinforced my decision to write Rubio an open letter urging his endorsement of Sen. Cruz.

Rubio didn’t go so far as to endorse Cruz, but he could have said nothing at all. Or he could have said, “We have to beat Donald Trump, and only Ted Cruz has a chance to do so.”

Instead, he specifically said Cruz is the only conservative left in the race, by which he sent a signal that John Kasich is not suitably conservative and that he, Rubio, cares deeply about conservatism. That is significant and gratifying.

Perhaps Rubio didn’t endorse Cruz outright because of the bitterness of their rivalry prior to their unwritten alignment to turn their focus on Trump some weeks ago. Maybe he is concerned that his millions of supporters would be perplexed by a sudden gesture of forgiveness and unity.

But Rubio’s affirmation of Cruz’s conservatism and his inspiring exit speech would be a nice predicate for a full-throated endorsement at some point in the near future.

I remember commenting before one of the debates that I wished that Cruz and Rubio could avoid getting bogged down yet again in a heated, confusing debate over the minutiae of amnesty, Spanish-language interviews and poison-pill legislation. It led to reciprocal charges of lying, increased polarization between Rubio and Cruz supporters, decreased emphasis on other important issues, and — worst of all — a virtual pass for Trump.

I understand that these issues are important and had to be addressed, but the discussions reached diminishing returns early on, and both candidates’ supporters became more entrenched and convinced that the other was being deceitful. It was painful to watch, and I am sure I’m not the only one who just wanted it to go away. By the time Cruz and Rubio had achieved a de facto truce, Trump was well on his way to gobbling up victories, despite his woeful deficiencies and embarrassing debate performances.

If Twitter is any indication, many Rubio supporters remain furious and unforgiving toward Cruz. Many Cruz supporters are outraged that Rubio, in their view, handed Missouri, Illinois and North Carolina to Trump by insisting on staying in the race with the hope of winning his home state of Florida even though the polls indicated he didn’t have a chance.

I’m frankly tired of the selfishness on all sides, placing our own negative desire to vent our emotions ahead of the national interest. It’s time for a truce — an end to the gloating from one side and recriminations from the other — and it’s past time for healing if we are to have any realistic chance of nominating a true conservative to run against Hillary Clinton. We’ve all been angry at times during this race, but it’s time to bury the hatchet and unite.

I would first appeal to my fellow Cruz supporters to acknowledge and applaud Rubio’s wonderful withdrawal speech, in which he eloquently expressed his passionate love for America and for the American idea. You may think he’s naive or worse on the important immigration issue, but I don’t think you can fairly question his genuine patriotism — and his unapologetic love for Jesus Christ and his humble deference to God’s glorious plan for all of us. Remember, he made these comments on the way out.

To Rubio, I would say:

“Sir, thank you for those inspiring words. You fought valiantly and have now withdrawn. Even if some prefer John Kasich to Ted Cruz, Kasich has no path to the nomination, even in a contested convention, and the longer he stays and the more support he receives the greater the chance that Donald Trump will be the nominee. Let’s not pretend that any other conclusion is reasonable. I am convinced you still command a great deal of respect, not just among your supporters but with many others, and if you choose to pursue it, you have a bright political future. I respectfully implore you not just to enthusiastically endorse Ted Cruz but to strongly urge your supporters to do so, as well. Yes, you have great influence over the delegates you earned, but you could have even more influence in initiating the healing process that must occur between your supporters and those of Sen. Cruz, which, I believe, partially preceded your respective candidacies, as the lines began to form during the government shutdown debates. Your leadership in bringing about harmony among conservatives is imperative if we are to nominate a conservative this year, but it is also critical in strengthening the movement against irreversible migration toward nationalist populism. Sen. Rubio, you have already shown that you are not a fair-weather lover of America, so please go further and make a decision to proactively make a difference in the outcome of this election, for this is our last best chance to reverse the galloping expansion of government that is smothering our liberties.”

“And please, don’t just nominally endorse Sen. Cruz; join Carly Fiorina and others and get out on the campaign trail and bring your unique talents to the advancement of the Cruz candidacy. America will thank you — and be forever in your debt.”

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Leave a comment

This is from Conservative

Just imagine the headlines if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz spoke to a black person this way.

A Somali-American woman approached Clinton and asked her about past racial remarks, in particular the “superpredator” comment. The woman also mentioned the lack of diversity among elected officials.

Cruz SLAPS Fox News’ Chris Wallace

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Wire.

Chris Wallace like his late father, Mike Wallace is a political assassin posing as a journalist.


On Sunday, Ted Cruz fired back at Fox News’ Chris Wallace for targeting him with every charge that had been hitherto hurled at Cruz by Donald Trump while refusing to hear Cruz’s reply. Cruz also nailed Wallace for his treatment of Trump with kid gloves while Wallace lashed out at Cruz.

Wallace started his attack like this:

 … Ben Carson was suspending his campaign; that was false. The campaign put out flyers accusing people of voting violations; that was false. In South Carolina, a Cruz Super-PAC attacked Trump over the Confederate flag and your then-communications director posted a link this week accusing Rubio of disrespecting the bible; that was false. Question: Do you take personal responsibility, this is your campaign, except for the Super-PAC, do you take personal responsibility for this series of incidents, and what does it say about the culture of the campaign you’re running?

Cruz responded: “Chris, every accusation you raised there is incorrect. I appreciate you’re reading the Donald Trump attack file on that –”

Wallace interrupted, “Oh, c’mon, sir -”

Cruz tried to continue while Wallace bellowed over him. Cruz said, “Let me tell you, our campaign has been from the highest -”

Cruz never got a chance. Wallace started yelling, “You personally apol – you, wait a minute, you – wait a minute, sir, you personally, you personally apologized to Ben Carson on the debate stage. You fired your communications director. Don’t (unintelligible) on our part, sir.”

Meanwhile, Cruz quietly said, “Chris, let me answer. Please don’t interrupt me. Chris, please don’t interrupt me. Chris, please don’t interrupt me.”

Wallace finally calmed down from his tirade enough to respond, “Please, don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.”

Cruz, finally given the chance to speak, continued, “Go ahead. Go ahead, Chris, and let me know when I’m allowed to answer.”

Wallace: “Don’t accuse me of doing something I didn’t do.” He couldn’t resist repeating his accusations: “Two of those things, you apologized for one and you fired your communications director. Don’t say this is the oppo file.”

Finally, Wallace let Cruz speak.


Chris, our campaign from the beginning has been the highest level of integrity; when others have engaged in personal attacks and insults, we don’t respond in kind, and you know, it was striking you just had Donald Trump on the air, you didn’t ask him about the fact that he sent out a fabricated quote from Tom Coburn impugning my integrity. Tom Coburn, Senator Coburn came out and said it was an utter fabrication and yet Donald continued repeating what he knew to be false. You didn’t ask Donald Trump about the robocalls that went out from a white supremacist group supporting Donald Trump, telling people do not vote for a Cuban, vote for Donald Trump.

You know, when it comes to telling the truth and not telling the truth, you didn’t ask Donald Trump about the fact that in the last debate, I asked him, “True or false, you support socialized medicine, the government paying for your health care.” He said false, and it’s directly contrary to what he said for twenty years on the record. Listen Chris, the facts matter, I understand that there are folks that don’t want to focus on the facts, but listen, the voters care about the truth; they care about Donald Trump’s record.”

“Go ahead. Go ahead, Chris, and let me know when I’m allowed to answer.”


Wallace interrupted, “Senator Cruz, we’re flat out of time, First of all, I don’t think anyone’s going to think I did an easy interview with Donald Trump; I asked him about plenty of things, If you want to ask him those questions, guess what, you’ll get the opportunity at the Fox debate on Thursday.”

Tragedy and Choices

Leave a comment

This is from Real Clear Politics. 

In the beginning I supported Donald Trump, but as time went on I got wise to Trump.

I am solidly in the corner of Ted Cruz.

Amid the petty bickering, loud rhetoric and sordid attack ads in this year’s primary election campaigns, the death of a giant — Justice Antonin Scalia — suddenly overshadows all of that.

The vacancy created on the Supreme Court makes painfully clear the huge stakes involved when we choose a President of the United States, just one of whose many powers is the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia’s passing would be a great loss at any time. But at this crucial juncture in the history of the nation — with 5-to-4 Supreme Court decisions determining what kind of country America will be — Scalia’s death can be catastrophic in its consequences, depending on who is chosen to be his successor.

Given the advanced ages of other justices, the next president is likely to have enough vacancies to fill to be able to shape the future of the court that helps shape the future of America.

Already many people are complaining that the America they grew up in, and loved, is being changed into something they can barely recognize. Record numbers are renouncing their American citizenship.

Meanwhile, people with high level experience in the military and in the intelligence services are warning us against extreme dangers in a world where our adversaries’ military power and aggressiveness are increasing, while our military forces are being cut back.

Against this background, the frivolous rhetoric and childish antics in the televised political “debates” are painful to watch. If ever there was a time to choose a president with depth, rather than glitter or glibness, this is it.

Whatever the achievements of anyone in some other field, we cannot afford a novice in the complex world of politics and government at a time of grave dangers at home and internationally.

Some seem to think that Donald Trump’s lead in the polls and in the New Hampshire primary make him the most electable candidate, even if he often acts like an overgrown spoiled brat.

But the fact that Trump leads in the polls does not mean that he is electable in the general election this fall. He is ahead only because the majority vote among Republicans has been split among so many other candidates.

Although Hillary Clinton is said to have been beaten badly in the Democrat’s primary vote in New Hampshire, she still had a higher percentage of the Democrats’ vote than Trump had of the Republicans’ votes.

Unfortunately, the way the Republican primaries are set up, Trump can win all the delegates from some states without having to get a majority of the votes in any state. But in the general election in November, a candidate usually has to win a majority in a state, in order to win that state’s votes in the Electoral College.

The Republicans can end up with a candidate who cannot even get a majority of Republicans’ votes, much less a majority of the votes in the general population.

If, by some miracle, Trump became president, what kind of president would he be? Do we need another self-centered know-it-all in the White House to replace the one we have now?

Among the other Republican candidates, Dr. Ben Carson is a monumental figure in his field, and he is clearly revered even by people who would not vote for him. But votes are how elections are decided.

The governors among the Republican candidates can at least be judged by how their track record stands up in running a governmental organization. So can Senator Ted Cruz, who was solicitor general in Texas. But Senator Marco Rubio has no comparable experience — and his inexperience has shown up in his abortive attempt to join Democrats in promoting amnesty.

If the Republicans are to avoid having Donald Trump lead them — and the country — to disaster, they are going to have to have the majority of non-Trump supporters get behind some given candidate.

Senator Ted Cruz has been criticized in this column before, and will undoubtedly be criticized here again. But we can only make our choices among those actually available, and Senator Cruz is the one who comes to mind when depth and steadfastness come to mind.

As someone who once clerked for a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he will know how important choosing Justice Scalia’s replacement will be. And he has the intellect to understand much more.

Ted Cruz Issues Huge Statement on What the Bible Says About Killing Muslims… This Is Brutal

1 Comment

This is from the Conservative Tribune. 

I disagree with this headline saying this is brutal.

Ted Cruz is biblically correct and is correct in the observation the president needs to protect the American people.

He is also correct about the need of truly free enterprise with out government interference.

Sen. Ted Cruz said that he would not be violating his Christian faith if he followed through on his vow to “carpet bomb” Islamic State group militants — a statement that’s sure to upset liberals across the country.

The Texas Republican and presidential candidate told Newsmax Wednesday: ”Let’s be clear, the Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not murder,’ which is different from ‘Thou shalt not kill.’”

“Defending yourself is an obligation of any president. It is not murder,” Cruz added in the interview with Ed Berliner on “The Hard Line.”

Cruz pointed out that while America killed Nazis in World War II, it wasn’t murder.

“When you have the face of evil that has declared war … then it is the essence of duty to defend your nation, to defend the innocent,” he said. “When it comes to jihadists, they have declared war on us, and that’s what President Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to acknowledge.”

The leader of the United States should fight radical Islam the same way President Ronald Reagan fought the Soviets when bringing an end to the Cold War, Cruz said. Reagan aimed his foreign policy around the notion of defeating communism — a strategy of “we win, they lose.”

Reagan “championed tax reform and regulatory reform,” Cruz said, which “unchained the American economy.” The economic growth that resulted from from his reform allowed the former president to rebuild the military and challenge Soviet communism “on every front, strategically we bankrupted the Soviet Union and won the Cold War.”

This is the kind of leadership America needs at a time when terrorists show no fear. Our leader needs to be aggressive and principled when taking on the Islamic State group, and the last thing he should worry about is offending anyone in the process.

And this is exactly what the White House lacks under the current administration.


// <![CDATA[
(function(){var g=this,k=function(a,b){var c=a.split(&quot;.&quot;),d=g;c[0]in d||!d.execScript||d.execScript(&quot;var &quot;+c[0]);for(var e;c.length&amp;&amp;(e=c.shift());)c.length||void 0===b?d=d[e]?d[e]:d[e]={}:d[e]=b},aa=function(a){var b=typeof a;if(“object”==b)if(a){if(a instanceof Array)return”array”;if(a instanceof Object)return b;var;if(“[object Window]”==c)return”object”;if(“[object Array]”==c||”number”==typeof a.length&&”undefined”!=typeof a.splice&&”undefined”!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable(“splice”))return”array”;if(“[object Function]”==c||”undefined”!=typeof”undefined”!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable(“call”))return”function”}else return”null”;else if(“function”==b&&”undefined”==typeof”object”;return b},ba=function(a,b,c){return,arguments)},ca=function(a,b,c){if(!a)throw Error();if(2<arguments.length){var d=”,2);return” function(){var=”” c=”;Array.prototype.unshift.apply(c,d);return” a.apply(b,c)}}return=”” function(){return=”” a.apply(b,arguments)}},l=”function(a,b,c){l=Function.prototype.bind&&-1!=Function.prototype.bind.toString().indexOf(“native” code”)?ba:ca;return=”” l.apply(null,arguments)};var=”” n=”function(a,b){var” isnan(c)?b:c};var=”” p=”function(a){p[“” “](a);return=”” a};p[“=”” “]=”function(){};var” r=”function(a){var” b=”window;return” b.getcomputedstyle?b.getcomputedstyle(a,null):a.currentstyle};var=”” v=”function(a,b){a.addEventListener?a.addEventListener(“click”,b,!1):a.attachEvent&&a.attachEvent(“onclick”,b)};var” w=”function(a){var” x;var=”” y=”String.prototype.trim?function(a){return” a.trim()}:function(a){return=”” a.replace(=”” ^[\s\xa0]+|[\s\xa0]+$=”” g,””)},z=”function(a,b){return” ab?1:0};var da=Array.prototype.indexOf?function(a,b,c){return,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){c=null==c?0:0>c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(“string”==typeof a)return”string”==typeof b&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;cparseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),H={},I=function(a){var b;if(!(b=H[a])){b=0;for(var c=y(String(G)).split(“.”),d=y(String(a)).split(“.”),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f<e;f++){var h=”c[f]||””,m=d[f]||””,t=RegExp(“(\\d*)(\\D*)”,”g”),ma=RegExp(“(\\d*)(\\D*)”,”g”);do{var” q=”t.exec(h)||[“”,””,””],u=ma.exec(m)||[“”,””,””];if(0==q[0].length&&0==u[0].length)break;b=z(0==q[1].length?0:parseInt(q[1],10),0==u[1].length?0:parseInt(u[1],10))||z(0==q[2].length,0==u[2].length)||z(q[2],u[2])}while(0==b)}b=H[a]=0<=b}return” b},j=”g.document,ia=J&&D?F()||(“CSS1Compat”==J.compatMode?parseInt(G,10):5):void” 0;var=”” k;if(!(k=”!E&&!D)){var” l;if(l=”D)L=9<=Number(ia);K=L}K||E&&I(“1.9.1″);var” m=”D&&!I(“9″);var” n=”function(a){var” b=”document;return”string”==typeof” a?b.getelementbyid(a):a},o=”function(a,b){var” c=”b||document;return” c.queryselectorall&&c.queryselector?c.queryselectorall(“.”+a):ka(a,b)},ka=”function(a,b){var” c,d,e,f;c=”document;c=b||c;if(c.querySelectorAll&&c.querySelector&&a)return” c.queryselectorall(“”+(a?”.”+a:””));if(a&&c.getelementsbyclassname){var=”” h}h=”c.getElementsByTagName(“*”);if(a){f={};for(d=e=0;c=h[d];d++){var” m.split)t=”0=this.h.bottom&&this.h.left>=this.h.right)},va=function(){var a=new ua;return a.O&&(!a.aa||a.P>=a.$)};var V=function(a,b,c,d){this.G=a;this.R=b;this.T=c;this.m=0;this.l=document.getElementById(“mtadmas”);this.M=document.getElementById(“mtadmaundo”);this.C=document.getElementById(“mtadmac”);this.D=document.getElementById(“mtadmback”);this.J=document.getElementById(“mtadmpc”);this.N=document.getElementById(“mtadmpundo”);this.A=document.getElementById(“mtadmpunclose”);this.L=this.u=this.H=this.F=null;this.v=0;this.i=null;this.j=!1;this.s=null;this.W=d?d.getAdsLength():1;(this.g=d)&&this.g.registerWidget(this,0);this.I=0},wa=function(a){for(var b=document.getElementsByName(“surveyOptions”),c=0;c<b.length;c++)v(b[c],l(a.x,a,b[c].value));a.m&&v(a.m,l(a.b,a,”1″));a.n&&v(a.n,l(a.b,a,”3″));a.a&&v(a.a,l(a.y,a));a.d&&v(a.d,l(a.back,a));a.g&&(a.g.listenonobject(“mute_option_selected”,l(a.k,a)),a.g.foreachad(l(function(a){a.listenonobject(“multislot_mute_collapse”,l(this.v,this));a.listenonobject(“multislot_mute_collapse_undo”,l(this.u,this))},a)))};v.prototype.k=function(a){this.f=a.close_button_token;this.h=a.creative_conversion_url;this.u=a.ablation_config;this.l=a.undo_callback;this.v=a.creative_index||0;this.g&&(this.s=this.g.getad(this.v));if(1===a.type){a=o(“survey”);for(var b=””survey_”+this.v,c=0;c<a.length;c++)a[c].style.display=a[c].id==b?”block”:”none”;a=document.getElementsByName(“surveyOptions”);for(b=0;b<a.length;b++)a[b].checked=!1;”block”;W(this);X(this)}else” 0=”==a.type&&(”block”,”none”,W(this),xa(this,document.getElementById(“pub-feedback-closing”),this.u))};var” y=”function(a){a.i&&(window.clearInterval(a.i),a.i=null,a.j=!1);N(“pub-feedback-closing”).style.display=”none”;N(“ad-feedback-closing”).style.display=”none”};V.prototype.B=function(a){this.j||(Y(this),w(Z(this,”user_feedback_undo”,a)),this.L())};V.prototype.Y=function(){var” a=”{msg_type:”resize-me”};a.key_value=[{key:”r_nh”,value:String(this.I)},{key:”r_str”,value:”animate”}];a=T(a);,”*”);this.j=!1;this.B(“3″)};V.prototype.back=function(){this.j||(Y(this),”block”,W(this),X(this))};V.prototype.X=function(a){”block”;”none”;X(this);w(Z(this,”mute_survey_option”,a));a=document.getElementById(“ad-feedback-closing”);||e>h||a.i)){var m=na();c=l(function(){var a=””;h<=d&&0=h&&Y(this);h–},a);c();0<=h&&(a.i=window.setInterval(c,1E3))}},xa=function(a,b,c){if(c&&{var d=qa(c),e=pa(d),f=”resize-me”==d.msg_type&&”animate”==e.r_str;if(“ablate-me”==d.msg_type&&e[“collapse-after-close”]||f&&!va())a.A&&(a.I=window.innerHeight,f=document.getElementById(“cbtf”),f=oa(x||(x=new R),f)[1],f=Aa(a.S,f),c=Ba(d,f)),za(a,b,n(e[“secs-to-countdown”],1),n(e.countdown,0),n(e[“message-tick”],1),function(){,”*”)})}},Ba=function(a,b){if(!isNaN(b)&&isFinite(b)){var c=!1;if(a.key_value){for(var d=a.key_value,e=0;e
// ]]>

Five other presidential “birther” controversies from American history

1 Comment

This is from the National Constitution Center. 

The birther stories have been around for many years and did not start with Obama.

In the midst of the current debate over Ted Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency, Constitution Daily looks back at five other birthplace controversies involving candidates.

Carthur640Currently, GOP front runner Donald Trump wants Cruz to legally prove that the Canadian-born Senator is qualified to run for the White House. Cruz has insisted that “the son of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.”

Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution requires that “[n]o person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, with his father being from Cuba and his mother coming from Delaware in the United States.

Recent thoughts from constitutional experts seem to side with Cruz’s argument, but not all experts agree – including Cruz’s own law professor from Harvard. Laurence Tribe recently told the Guardian in a series of email exchanges that “there is no single, settled answer. And our Supreme Court has never addressed the issue.”

A related issue is the eligibility of a candidate born in the United States to foreign-born parents. Specifically, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” A later Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, seemingly reinforced the theory than people born on American soil are American citizens. But not everyone agrees with that, pointing to the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as proof the 14th Amendment’s drafters has limited intent when drafting that provision.

In 2012, Trump has publicly doubted President Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold office, siding with theories that Obama might have been born outside of the United States, giving birth to the term “birther.”

Here’s a look at five other birthplace controversies, going back to the original birther debate in 1880.

Chester Alan Arthur

In 1880, Arthur ran as the vice presidential candidate on the James Garfield ticket for the Republican Party. Arthur became President after Garfield’s death in 1881 and there were rumors – spread by campaign rivals –  that Arthur had been born in Canada, and not Vermont, as he claimed.

Arthur’s father was born in Ireland and his mother was born in the United States. If Arthur was born in Canada, his opponents claimed, there was a citizenship issue.

Marquette Law professor J. Gordon Hylton pointed out in a 2009 blog post that if Arthur was born in Canada “he was technically foreign-born, and in 1829, citizenship in such cases passed to the child only if the father was a United States citizen, and, of course, at this point Arthur’s father was still a citizen of the British Empire.”

Charles Evans Hughes

There was also a birthplace controversy over the 1916 presidential candidacy of Charles Evans Hughes, the Republican who narrowly lost to Woodrow Wilson.

There were claims that Hughes was ineligible for office because his father was born in the British Empire in Wales. Hughes was born in Glen Falls, New York, and his mother was also born in New York state; he was also born before the 14th Amendment was ratified. An attorney, Breckinridge Long, apparently challenged Hughes’ qualifications in a 1916 Chicago Legal News article.

Barry Goldwater

The 1964 Republican presidential candidate was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909 before Arizona was admitted as a state. Goldwater was born in an organized incorporated territory that was formed in 1863, an act that is interpreted to grant U.S. citizenship to folks born there.

For more on the citizenship distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories, see the recent news coverage about the efforts of American Samoa residents to become full American citizens.

George Romney

As a candidate for the 1968 presidency, Romney faced questions because he was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907 at a Mormon colony. His parents were born in the Utah Territory before Utah became a state, and they were American citizens. Romney’s parents chose United States citizenship for their son. The Romneys left Mexico when George Romney was very young, due to the Mexican Revolution.

Democrats questioned Romney’s ability to run for President in 1967 when congressman Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat, publicly expressed “serious doubts” about Romney’s eligibility. A New York Law Journal article later sided with Romney, who insisted he was a natural-born citizen.

John McCain

Senator McCain faced questions in the 2008 election, since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His parents were born in Iowa and Oklahoma. McCain’s father was a Navy admiral.

In addition to having two parents who were American citizens, McCain was born in a region that was under the control of a United States treaty agreement, which was considered as a sovereign United States territory.

In 2008, Tribe and Theodore Olsen, another well-known legal expert, wrote in a law journal article that “the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.”

Still, there was on-going talk during the McCain campaign on the Internet that the Senator wasn’t eligible for the White House, which led to several unsuccessful lawsuits. The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution declaring McCain as eligible to be President.

Huckabee Hits Cruz with Whopper Lie; Then Denies It’s a Lie

Leave a comment

This is from the Last Resistance. 

Mike Huckabee has crossed over to the dark side and become an Establishment Republican.

Accuracy is the twin brother of honesty; inaccuracy, of dishonesty.” – Nathaniel Hawthorne

I am profoundly disheartened by Mike Huckabee’s behavior. I was a supporter of his in 2008 because he was clearly the more conservative alternative to John McCain, but a short eight years later, he’s let me down–not because he’s polling at a paltry 1.8%, but because he was willfully dishonest when asked about a recent attack on a fellow candidate.

A Super PAC supporting Mike Huckabee recently ran an ad that quotes Ted Cruz at a Manhattan fundraiser. The precisely edited clip makes it appear as though Cruz isn’t who he says he is.

Here’s the ad:

Sounds bad, right? Not so fast. The recording from which that clip was taken has a lot more to offer. Here’s the actual transcript of the exchange between Cruz and his questioner as provided by Politico:

DONOR: “Can I ask you a question? So, I’m a big supporter. And the only issue I really disagree with you about is gay marriage. And I’m curious: Given all the problems that the country’s facing–like ISIS, the growth of government–how big a priority is fighting gay marriage going to be to a Cruz administration?”

CRUZ: “My view on gay marriage is that I’m a constitutionalist and marriage is a question for the states. And so I think if someone wants to change the marriage laws of their state, the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens–and change them democratically, rather than five unelected judges…Being a constitutionalist is integral to my approach to every other issue. So that I’m very devoted to.”

DONOR: “So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you–fighting gay marriage?”

CRUZ: “No. I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum–whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty, stopping courts from making public policy issues that are left to the people…I also think the 10th Amendment of the Constitution cuts across a whole lot of issues and can bring people together. People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio…That’s why we have 50 states–to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.”

Not only does Cruz stay consistent with his public message, but when the exchange is viewed in full, Huckabee’s ad is revealed to be a gross mischaracterization of what was said.

Ah! But Super PACs aren’t allowed to coordinate with candidates, so it’s not Huckabee’s fault this ad was produced. He had no involvement in it. Oh wait–when asked on Fox News if the ad was dishonest, Huck doubled down, saying:

“…there’s nothing selective, there was nothing deceptive. The point is that in Iowa he’s made a major point, and he’s pitched to evangelicals as a person who is utterly authentic. He’s going to fight for religious liberty. He’s going to protect the right of people to disagree with decisions on same-sex marriage. But that’s not what you heard in that Manhattan fundraiser and that’s the only thing that I have pointed out.”

Well, there you have it. Read the transcript, watch the ad, then listen to Huckabee. Unless Huckabee’s a complete moron–which he’s not–he knows that the ad is patently dishonest. Yet he went on national tv, and fired away. Perhaps I’m so profoundly disappointed because Huckabee used to be a preacher; maybe his past makes this more painful for me. Regardless, for any alleged conservative to be that blatantly dishonest hits me hard. I’ve always viewed Huck as a very honest man. Now I know better.

This is similar to an attack from Rick Santorum–who’s currently languishing at 0.5% in the polls–in which he claimed Cruz isn’t a real social conservative because he’s an adherent to the Tenth Amendment.

Dear Mike Huckabee, stop lying, or avoiding the truth (if we want to get political about it), and drop out of the race. Your time has passed. You’ve disappointed conservatives enough for one cycle.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: