Another election of a lifetime. Outcome may affect the survival of the USA, which is already in trouble.
Some Possible Republican Candidates:
Some of these are actually Progressives, unqualified or even constitutionally ineligible. But, the media and party don't note that. More will come along.
So far, Hillary is touted as the leading Democrat candidate. Third party candidates haven't been announced yet, but will likely have theitr usual uphill battle of publicity blackouts, prejudicial election laws, funding, etc.
Some hints may be gleaned from our 2012 Presidential Election discussion.
Member/Readers, please add your comments, articles, links below. Let the games begin.
The SRLC has picked a winner in their straw poll, and it’s none other than BEN CARSON!!!
After three days of speeches at the conservative cattle call that is the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC), one presidential candidate stood out in an already crowded Republican field of hopefuls: neurologist-turned-politician Dr. Ben Carson.
Carson, who announced his candidacy for the White House earlier this month, emerged victorious at the SRLC’s closing straw poll, drawing just over a quarter of the votes.
Considered an early indicator of southern primary voter support, the conference straw poll is also the first in the election cycle. A win in this contest, however, does not always guarantee a strong showing in Republican primaries: In the 2011 straw poll, for example, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul won by a margin of nearly 15 percentage points over former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
At this year’s SRLC, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker finished in second place, currying favor with just over 20 percent of the crowd. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed with 16.6 percent of votes. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in fourth at 5.3 percent, with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry trailing close behind with 5 percent of votes.
Straw polls mean almost nothing and can be jiggered easily. Remember that Ron Paul won the CA Republican straw poll- OVERWHELMINGLY. I saw hordes of scruffy-looking folks infiltating the convention floor all morning, They were all gone after lunch, leaving Paul the victor.
Earlier today, Heidi and I had the tremendous honor of attending the Memorial Day Ceremony at Houston National Cemetery. As patriots across our nation gather to remember and honor those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, I wanted to share with you my remarks from this morning’s ceremony:
Thank you very much, and God bless our veterans. My wife Heidi and I are honored to be with you today.
We gather here today to remember the heroes who have kept us free.
Each marker here represents a story, some told and some untold. Heroes who span generations.
Heroes like the Honorable Albert Thomas, who served as a Lieutenant in World War I, and then went on to represent Houston for nearly 30 years in Congress, and in large part, played a key role in the reason we stand on this green today.
Medal of Honor Recipients like First Lieutenant Raymond Knight, who completed more than 80 combat missions in World War II.
And First Sergeant David McNerney, who volunteered to serve a third tour in Vietnam.
In one particularly harrowing attack, more than half of his platoon was killed or wounded.
Even after being injured, he fearlessly led a counterattack, saving men who were in the grip of their enemies, and climbed atop a tree to guide friendly aircraft to a safe landing.
These are just a few of the patriots who have given their utmost for liberty.
The men and women buried here have not simply known freedom; they have embodied it.
More than 30,000 Texans have lost their lives in defense of this nation.
As James Garfield said in the 1868 Decoration Day Address – what would come to be known as the very first Memorial Day – “For love of country they accepted death, and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and their virtue.”
It is breathtaking to think of all the souls under this green earth who laid down their lives so that we might be free.
Their sacrifice is the very sapling of liberty.
Today Heidi and I brought our two precious little girls, Caroline and Catherine, to be with us today, and as we together lay flags on the graves of heroes, may the stripes of those flags remind us of the blood shed so that freedom shines forth for all generations.
So that my daughters, and your sons and daughters, and grandchildren, and their grandchildren may always enjoy the blessings of this great nation. Today, our hearts are filled with gratitude for their bravery. May we never forget it.
A Rick Santorum
B – Scott Walker
C Ted Cruz, Rick Perry
C- Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, John Kasich
D+ Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Jim Webb
D- Marco Rubio, Martin O’Malley
F Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham
F- Bernie Sanders, Joseph Biden, Elizabeth Warren
Al Gagnon FACTUAL CRUZ CITIZENSHIP TIMELINE
(Everything presented in this timeline is a matter of public record. All of it is based upon publicly reported events, public statements made by Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz, officials with the Elect Ted movement or U.S. andCanadian officials.)
1957 – After working as a teen to help Fidel Castro gain power in Cuba, and being imprisoned for his actions by the Batista regime, Cuban Rafael Cruz applies for admittance to the University of Texas as a foreign student and enters the U.S. on a four year student visa to attend four years of college. He is a Cuban citizen attending a U.S. college on a student visa obtained through the U.S. Consulate in Havana.
1961-1962 – After graduating college at the University of Texas, and upon the expiration of his student visa, Cruz Sr. applied for and received “political asylum” and was issued a “green card.” A green card is a permit to reside and work in the United States, without becoming a “citizen” of the United States, in this case, under political asylum from Castro’s Cuba. His citizenship status was that of a Cuban national living and working in the United States, under a green card work permit. According to U.S. laws, the “green card” holder must maintain permanent resident status, and can be removed from the United States if certain conditions of this status are not met.
1964-1966 – Cruz Sr. takes a few odd jobs, marries and moves to Canada to work in the oil fields. The Cruz family resides in Canada for the next eight years. “I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” – (From and interview with NPR)
Peter Spiro, a legal expert on U.S. citizenship at Temple University. Spiro says Rafael Cruz's multi-country odyssey did not follow traditional models for immigration. – SPIRO: “Ted Cruz himself seems to be an advocate of those traditional immigration models. Maybe he should be a little more tolerant of the nontraditional versions, given his own father's history.”
1970 – Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz. As a result, U.S. statutes would have voided the prior “green card” status which requires among other things, permanent residency within the United States and obviously, not becoming a citizen of another country during the time frame of the U.S. green card.
1974 – The Cruz family moves to the United States when Ted is approximately four years old. Rafael Cruz has publicly stated that he remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he applied for and became a U.S. Naturalized citizen in 2005. As a result, his wife and son were also Canadian citizens, his son being born a citizen of Canada in 1970.
2005 – Rafael Cruz applies for legal U.S. citizenship and renounces his Canadian citizenship. No record of Ted renouncing his Canadian citizenship or applying for U.S. citizenship exists as of 2005.
2013 – Freshman Senator Ted Cruz is a rising star in the Tea Party movement, and calls for him to run for the White House begin. In July, Ted Cruz is questioned by the press about his interest in running for President, and the issue of his Canadian born citizenship is brought up.
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.”
NOTE: Senator Cruz omits the part of his father’s story, in particular, the part about his parents applying for and receiving Canadian citizenship prior to Ted’s birth in Calgary. He also attempts to gloss past the actual definition of natural-born Citizen by implying it is a mere legal debate for others to figure out.
August 2013 – As Ted’s political stock rises in the Tea Party, so do press questions about his eligibility for office. Ted decides to quiet the questions by releasing his birth certificate, which now becomes absolute proof of Ted’s Canadian citizenship at birth, 1970, Calgary. The release of the Canadian birth records only serve to further fuel the controversy…
Ted seeks legal counsel, as the media is now pressing members of Canadian Immigration and Naturalization to clear the matter up, when instead, Canadian officials confirm the Ted Cruz was in fact born a legal citizen of Canada, the son of two parents who had also applied for and received Canadian citizenship prior to Ted’s birth.
“He’s a Canadian,” said Toronto lawyer Stephen Green, past chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship and Immigration Section. “Generally speaking, under the Citizenship Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at birth unless their parent was a foreign diplomat,” said ministry spokeswoman Julie Lafortune.
Legal counsel advises Ted to “renounce his Canadian citizenship” in order to make himself eligible to run for the Presidency. Of course, renouncing one’s original citizenship only further proves one’s original citizenship.
May 2014 – Ted Cruz legal counsel files to renounce Ted’s Canadian citizenship in an effort to make him eligible to run for high office under the natural-born Citizen clause Article II in the U.S. Constitution.
AUSTIN, Texas – Canada-born U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has given up his citizenship from his birth country, making good on a promise from last summer. Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said “the Tea Party favorite formally gave up his citizenship May 14. He received official confirmation of the action at his Houston home Tuesday.”
News that he had renounced his citizenship was first reported by the Dallas Morning News. The newspaper also broke that Cruz had dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship when he released his birth certificate in August.
Frazier said Cruz “is pleased to have the process finalized” and that it “makes sense he should be only an American citizen.”- Of course, the Constitution does not require that one be only an American citizen, but rather a natural born Citizen.
As of February 4, 2015 – No evidence of any U.S. Citizenship has been released to confirm anything at all about the true citizenship status of Ted Cruz.
Because Ted Cruz has been confirmed a legal citizen of Canada up until renouncing his Canadian citizenship in May of 2014, and because he has been confirmed a citizen of Canada at birth, and because his Father is on public record stating that he and his wife became citizens of Canada during their eight years living in Canada and because Rafael Cruz remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced and applied for legal U.S. citizenship in 2005…. There is simply NO WAY that Ted Cruz was, is or ever can be a “natural-born Citizen” of the United States eligible for the offices of President or Vice President.
So, does this mean that members of the Tea Party are engaged in an overt effort to defraud Tea Party members who are Ted fans, by all of this legal fancy footwork?
The facts are all well documented. You decide
Ted Cruz announced Monday that he will run for president in 2016 — a possibility that had been broached as far back as his first few months in the Senate in 2013. And ever since then, there has been an undercurrent of people doubting whether he actually can be president, given that he was born in Canada. Below, we are re-posting a couple items on the controversy, which sounds a lot like the so-called birther claims about President Obama but has one very significant difference.
First, here's the root of the issue:
Cruz, like a couple of presidential candidates before him, faces a potential hurdle to running for president in that it's not 100 percent clear that he's a "natural-born citizen," as the Constitution requires presidents to be.
Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and current U.S. law extends citizenship to anyone born to a U.S. citizen, regardless of where the birth takes place. The question is whether citizenship is the same thing as being a "natural-born citizen."
Legal scholars generally agree that Cruz meets that requirement, and Cruz's office agrees. But it also remains somewhat untested in the courts.
While no president-elect has formally tested the "natural-born citizen" requirement, several have run for president with that question hanging over their candidacies.
Democrats in 1967 suggested that Republican George Romney would not be eligible to serve as president, because he was born to U.S. citizens in Mexico. But a New York Law Journal piece at the time argued forcefully that he would be, and that seemed to put the issue to rest. (Romney's primary campaign wound up imploding.)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the GOP's nominee in 2008, was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. citizens. After he secured the party's nomination, the Senate in 2008 passed a resolution stating that McCain was indeed a natural-born citizen.
In fact, this debate dates back to President Chester A. Arthur and the original "birther" controversy. While Arthur is listed as being born in Vermont, some argued that he was born in Canada and thus ineligible to be president.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has even weighed in on the issue, writing in November 2011 that people born to U.S. citizens in foreign countries "most likely" qualify as natural-born citizens.
"The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term 'natural born citizen' would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country," wrote Jack Maskell.
Cruz's office thought enough of the issue in 2013 to have the senator release his birth certificate and later renounce his Canadian citizenship. Here's my take from then on how Cruz "birthers" are different from Obama "birthers":
And for the few in the birther community, they see hypocrisy. Why are the media not denouncing those who question Cruz's eligibility in the same way they have denounced the so-called "birthers" who continue to question Obama's?
The reason? Because about the only thing these two situations have in common is that they involve a birth certificate and a presidential candidate.
Questions about Cruz's eligibility have everything to do with interpretation of the law; the questions about Obama's eligibility had everything to do with a dispute over the underlying facts — more specifically, conspiracy theories about whether the president was actually born in the United States, as he claimed, and whether he somehow forged a birth certificate that said he was born in Hawaii.
In Cruz's case, nobody is disputing the underlying facts of the case — that Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and a mother who was a United States citizen. As we wrote back in March (2013), that makes him a U.S. citizen himself, but it's not 100 percent clear that that is the same thing as a "natural born citizen" — the requirement for becoming president.
Most scholars think it's the same thing, and the Congressional Research Service said in 2011 that someone like Cruz "most likely" qualifies to run for president. But to this point, there is no final word from the courts, because while foreign-born candidates have run — including George Romney and John McCain — none of them has actually won and had his eligibility challenged.
Obama was also born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, meaning if he was in fact born outside the United States, the situations might be parallel. But birthers weren't making a legal argument about Obama; they were arguing the facts about where he was born and accusing him of perpetrating a massive fraud.
Some will accuse the media of instituting a double standard when it comes to these two cases because Cruz is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat. But nobody is accusing Cruz of lying about his past as part of a vast conspiracy to become president.
It's just not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Update 2:51 p.m.: And here is our Post colleague Robert Barnes's recent piece on what top legal experts from both sides say:
Two of the top lawyers for the Obama and Bush administrations agree on this: Sen. Ted Cruz can become president. Legally speaking, anyway.
Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama, penned a piece for the Harvard Law Review tackling the question of what the Constitution means when it says that the president must be at least 35 years old, a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and a “natural born Citizen.”
“All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time,” they wrote. “And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”
The First Congress, they noted, established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were themselves citizens at birth “and explicitly recognized that such children were ‘natural born citizens.’
“The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress,” Katyal and Clement write. “That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.”
Designated Terrorist Group CAIR is demanding that Republican presidential candidate and Texas Senator Ted Cruz remove Kevin Kookogey as his state chairman for Tennessee because of his longstanding support for anti-Islamization and anti-sharia causes. (Making it one of the best reasons to support Ted Cruz for president)
The Venture “If Senator Cruz chooses to keep Mr. Kookogey on his campaign staff, it would serve as an endorsement of anti-Muslim hate,” said CAIR Government Affairs Manager Robert McCaw. “In the past few months, Senator Cruz has attended several conferences featuring notorious Islamophobes like Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney. Despite calls to distance himself from such anti-Muslim bigots, it seems that Senator Cruz is only drawing closer to hate-mongers.”
As chairman of the Williamson County Republican Party, Kookogey oversaw the adoption of a resolution condemning Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam for appointing a Muslim lawyer to the state’s Department of Economic and Community Development.
The resolution stated in part:
“Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam has elevated and/or afford preferential political status to Sharia adherents in Tennessee, thereby aiding and abetting the advancement of an ideology and doctrine which is wholly incompatible with the Constitution of the United States and the Tennessee Constitution.”
In 2011, the Williamson County Republican Party hosted a luncheon to honor Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Wilders has proposed putting a tax on Islamic head scarves (hijab) worn by Muslim women.
When annoucing Kookogey’s addition, Cruz praised Kookogey for his conservative principles. “His experience and knowledge of both the landscape in Tennessee and the issues that matter to Tennesseans will be critical components to our success in the Volunteer State,” Cruz said.
The Cruz campaign and Kookogey did not return a message seeking comment. Worries about the spread of Shariah have surfaced in several states in recent years, often resulting in proposals to restrict the use of foreign law in state courts.
In January, CAIR issued an open letter to potential Republican presidential candidates urging them to reject Islamophobia and to reach out to American Muslim voters. (Obviously, you are being ignored)
UPDATE A spokesman for the presidential campaign for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz fired back at recent criticism over the decision to make a controversial Williamson County Republican the campaign’s Tennessee chairman, calling those remarks “absurd.” “It is absurd to suggest that being a defender of American law under the United States Constitution is somehow “Islamophobic.”
The resolution doesn’t mention anyone by name, but it was a clear criticism of pro-sharia Samar Ali, a Muslim attorney who worked for the state for about 18 months. “RESOLVED that the Williamson County Republican Party hereby opposes Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam’s recent appointment of a Shariah compliant finance expert to the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development,” states a copy of the resolution, according to Tennessean archives.
I'm definitely scared of an ineligible candidate who tried to increase H1-B visas by 500% voted for TPP and has a CFR wife who worked on some noxious projects.
Sure looks that way. Fox has been moving left for years. With Murdoch's sons taking over, I think Fox is now lost. There is no good TV news, so I rarely turn to TV for that.